District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 5:00P.M. Stan Boling, Planning Director. Commissioner Bob Solari

Transcription

1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL CALL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, :00 P.M. County Commission Chamber Indian River County Administration Complex h Street, Building A V ero Beach, Florida, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Wesley S. Davis, Chairman Joseph E. Flescher, Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Peter D. O'Bryan Bob Solari District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator William G. Collins II, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:00P.M. PAGE 2. INVOCATION Stan Boling, Planning Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Bob Solari 4. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of Amendments to Mining Regulations m LDR Chapters 911, 934, and 971 (memorandum dated ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. 'ecial Call Meeting, December 8, 2008 Page 1 of 2

2 Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at (772) (TDD # ) at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. The full agenda is available on line at the Indian River County Website at The full agenda is also available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, the Indian River County Main Library, the IRC Courthouse Law Library, and the North County Library. Commission Meeting may be broadcast live by Comcast Cable Channel27 Rebroadcasts continuously with the following proposed schedule: Tuesday at 6:00p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00p.m., Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning, and Saturday at 12:00 Noon to 5:00p.m. Special Call Meeting, December 8, 2008 Page 2 of 2

3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM PUBLIC HEARING LDR AMENDMENT LEGISLATIVE ~Al- TO: Joseph A Baird; County Administrator TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP; Af> Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: November 26, 2008 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendments to Mining Regulations in LDR Chapters 911,934, and 971 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of December 8, BACKGROUND On January 7, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted a 6 month moratorium on processing and accepting applications for new mines. Subsequently, the Board extended the moratorium for an additional 6 months, with the moratorium now set to expire on January 7, Under current state law, the moratorium cannot be extended beyond January 7, The purpose of the moratorium is to allow time for the connty to revisit its existing mining regulations and to consider changes to the regulations. Along with imposing the moratorium, the BCC tasked the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) and staff with the responsibility of conducting research, holding workshops, and re-evaluating the county's existing mining regulations. In addition, the PZC was directed to report back to the BCC with recommendations regarding mining regulations. With staffs assistance, the PZC held public workshops, evaluated the county's mining regulations and, along with staff, reported its recommendations to the BCC for its consideration. The BCC considered the PZC recommendations at its regular meeting of September 16, 2008 and at a special called meeting on October 6, At the end of the October 6 1 h meeting, the BCC agreed with most of the PZC's recommendations and provided staff direction on certain changes to the recommendations. At its November 4, 2008 meeting, the BCC reconsidered its initial decision to retain mmmg as an administrative permit use in the agricultural zoning districts. Instead, the BCC directed staff to advertise the PZC and BCC LDR hearings in a manner that will allow consideration of either keeping mining as an administrative permit or changing it to a special exception use. Staffhas drafted proposed amendments to the mining regulations in the form of two "versions". One version keeps mines categorized as an administrative permit use and the other version changes mines to a special exception use. F:\Comnmnity Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\BlC 934 and 971 LOR Amendment. rtf 1

4 At its meeting of November 19, 2008, the PZC considered both versions of the ordinance and ultimately recommended adoption of "Version I" which changes mines to a special exception use. The PZC also recommended other changes to the proposed ordinance. The PZC's recommendations are addressed in the "Analysis" section of this report. At this time, the BCC is to consider the proposed mining regulations and is to make a decision to adopt, adopt with changes, or reject the proposed amendments. If the Board decides to change mines to a special exception use, then it will need to hold a second and final adoption hearing. To prepare for that possibility, staff has reserved December 19, 2008 at 9:00am for a second hearing. ANALYSIS: Summary of Activities Since the moratorium was initiated, many mining regulation activities have been conducted. In addition to conducting research, exchanging information with other local governments, and monitoring state legislative activities, staff and the PZC conducted or participated in the following mining regulation activities: January 16,2008: Staff distributes major document on mining background information. January 18, 2008: Staff creates interested parties group and begins to continuously distribute updated information via . Staff also creates "Mining Regulations Updates" link on county website, and begins regular updates of the site, which currently provides 25 documents. January 24, 2008: At a PZC meeting, staff presents extensive background information on mining. Tom Lockwood (Sawmill Ridge Trucking) and Chuck Cramer (Fischer & Sons) present information and answer questions on local history and practices of hauling and mining operations. February 7, 2008: Agricultural Advisory Committee holds special meeting on hydrological effects of mines. Presenters include Dr. Sydney Bacchus, Richard Burklew (SJRWMD), and Dr. Louis Murray (USGS). Staff and PZC members attend February 14, 2008: Staff conducts mining mobile workshop for PZC and BCC members, touring Dickerson coquina mine on Indrio Road and Ranch Road Lake sand mine on 82nd A venue. Presenters include: Phil Strazulla, Larry Dale and Larry Heimer, Jr. (Dickerson), Steve Smith and Scott McGuire (Ranch Road Lake). April 9, 2008: May 22,2008: PZC conducts advertised public workshop on groundwater and surface water/discharge impacts of mining operations. Presenters include Dr. Sydney Bacchus and Dr. Les Bromwell. PZC conducts advertised public workshop on traffic and nuisance issues. Presenters include Assistant Public Works Director Chris Mora and Fischer & Sons Mining Operator Chuck Cramer. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\2:: 934 and 971 LOR Amendment. rtf 2

5 July 14, 2008 PZC conducts advertised public workshop on compatibility and notice issues. Presenters include Chris Mora and Public Works Director Jim Davis. August 13,2008 PZC conducts advertised public workshop on compliance and enforcement issues. Presenters include Sgt Jim Stewart of the Sheriffs Office traffic division. At the end of the workshop, the PZC reviews and comments on a comprehensive list of consensus recommendations on potential changes to the county's mining regulations. August 14, 2008 At the end of its regular meeting, the PZC provides final comments and gives its approval to a consensus list of 38 recommendations for the BCC's consideration. September 16, 2008 BCC initially considers the PZC recommendations. Due to the length of the September 16 1 h meeting, the BCC decides to call a special meeting to allow sufficient time for consideration. October 6, 2008 BCC holds a special called meeting, fully considers the 38 PZC recommendations, provides staff direction on changes, and directs staff to initiate LDR amendments. October 23, 2008 PSAC considers the proposed amendments and recommends that the BCC adopt the amendments with changes, and keep mines as an administrative permit use. November 4, 2008 BCC directs staff to advertise PZC and BCC hearings to allow consideration to categorize mines as either an administrative permit or special exception use. November 19, 2008: PZC recommends that the BCC adopt the amendments with changes and recommends that the BCC make mines a special exception use. December 8, 2008: (scheduled) BCC public hearing and final action (adoption of new regulations) if the BCC decides to keep mining as an administrative permit use. If, however, the BCC decides to change mining to a special exception use, then a second hearing will be required. A December 19 1 h hearing date has been reserved to prepare for this possibility. PSAC Recommendation At its meeting of October 23, 2008, the PSAC voted to recommend adoption of the proposed mining regulations with the following changes: 1. Delete proposed truck trip frequency requirements. 2. Increase from 2 to 5 the proposed number of formal unresolved violations needed to trigger a BCC penalty determination hearing. *3. Delete proposed fee waiver for appeals from PZC decision on mining projects. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\& 934 and 971 LDR Amendment. rtf 3

6 *4. Require PZC to hear public input. 5. Delete proposal to treat violations of independent truck drivers as violations against the mining operation served. 6. Increase the proposed paving threshold requirement in A-2 districts from 500 AADT to 1,500 AADT and eliminate any paving threshold requirement in the A-3 district. *Note: these 2 recommendations apply only to the "Version 2"/administrative permit ordinance. While the PSAC's mining ordinance amendment discussion included a number of good points associated with both sides of each of the six issues, staff does not agree with PSAC recommendations 1, 3, 5, and 6. Staff does, however, agree with recommendations 2 and 4, and those recommendations have been incorporated into the appropriate proposed ordinance versions (attachments 13 and 14). PZC Recommendation The PZC hearing held on November 19, 2008 lasted over 4 hours and included discussions on specific, potential modifications to the proposed regulation changes. At the end of the hearing, the PZC voted 7-0 to recommend that the BCC adopt ordinance "Version 1 ", the option which would make mining a special exception use. In addition, the PZC recommended that the following changes be made to the proposed regulations: I. Modify the proposed standards for unpaved roads by better defining the phrase "suitable road base material". 2. Clarify the phasing requirements by stating that portions of excavation pits do not need to be fully restored until the entire pit (lake area) is restored. 3. Clarify mining permit requirements by stating that the initial mining permit for a project must be obtained prior to on-site activities and that applicants must obtain the first renewal and all subsequent annual permit renewals in the fall of each year (on or before November 1 "). 4. Clarify violation penalty requirements by stating that progressive penalties apply only if the BCC has imposed penalties for violations at previous penalty hearings. 5. Modif'y the notice to surrounding property owners criteria by including owners of all properties that front the project haul route. 6. Modif'y noise regulations by requiring equipment to be located behind berms or placed below ground level, and by eliminating the option to mitigate noise from equipment by using special mufflers. 7. Modify paving threshold requirements by increasing the paving threshold for mines/haul routes in AG-2 areas to 1,000 AADT (average annual daily trips) and by eliminating paving thresholds for mines/haul routes in AG-3 areas. 8. Eliminate the proposed requirement for an expert review of the applicant's hydrology report and add a requirement that the applicant obtain a SJRWMD permit prior to a mining application being scheduled for PZC consideration. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\12~8 08 BCCu:4: 934 and 971 LOR Amendment.rtf 4

7 Staff agrees with changes 1-5 above, and has incorporated those changes into the proposed ordinances (Versions 1 and 2, attachments 13 and 14). Although the PZC expressed reasons for changes 6-8 above, staff does not agree with those two recommendations, and those two recommendations have not been incorporated into the proposed ordinances at this time. Staff has made three other changes to the proposed ordinances since the November 19th PZC hearing. These changes are summarized as follows: a. Added language to apply limited hours of operation criteria to mining operations with mining sites or haul routes located east ofi-95. b. Added language to state that the only traffic violations that are counted toward penalty thresholds are moving violations. c. Modified the proposed setback increases for crusher and processing equipment to take into account setback constraints on smaller mining sites (e.g. 40 acres or smaller). Items "a" and "b" above were discussed at the PZC hearing, but were not included in the PZC's formal recommendation. Staff feels that these two items were well received at the hearing and were worth incorporating into the proposed ordinances. Item "c" above was the result of input received by staff after the November 19th hearing from an applicant for a mining project on a smaller mining site. All changes to the proposed ordinances made since the November 19th PZC hearing are summarized and listed in attachment # 17. Proposed Mining Regulation Changes As proposed, the mining regulation changes will modify sections of Chapter 934 (Excavation and Mining) and (the specific land use criteria for mines) of the land development regulations. While the attached "Version 1" ordinance proposes changes to Chapter 911 that would re-classify mining as a special exception use, the attached "Version 2" ordinance proposes no changes to Chapter 911. Consequently, mining would retain its current administrative permit classification under "Version 2". With the exception of the administrative permit/special exception use issue, all changes described below are the same for both ordinance versions (Version 1 and Version 2). "Non-workshop" Changes Although most of the proposed changes apply to mining operations that require site plan and PZC approval, some of the proposed changes apply to short-term "incidental to construction" excavation and hauling activities that are exempt from most mining regulations, but are subject to regulations in section These "incidental to construction" activities include excavating and hauling off-site excess fill from small and large development projects and single-family ponds. To clarify and update items in section , the following changes are proposed: Clarify that transfer of excess material from a development site to an adjacent right-of-way (e.g. to provide for a road project) is not treated as an off-site transfer. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\~ 934 and 971 LOR Amendment. rtf 5

8 Clarify that, for smaller development projects (:S 350 acres), there is a 2 month window of time for hauling excess material off site. Clarify that, for larger development projects and large project phases(> 350 acres), there is an 18 month window of time for hauling excess material off site. Update references to posted security requirements Specify that no excess fill from maintenance of single-family ponds can be transferred off-site (not currently allowed). Provide for single-family ponds larger than the current 112 acre maximum area if a larger excavation area is needed to satisfy the need for fill on site. Provide that the amount of security required to be posted with single-family pond permits be set by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners (rather than by ordinance). The PZC reviewed these proposed changes and recommended approval as proposed. "Workshop" Changes Most of the proposed changes address "workshop issues" that apply to long term, on-going mining operations that are not incidental to development projects. Under existing regulations, such mines are limited to a 10 year operation period and are already subject to special setback, buffer, and hours of operation regulations. None of those existing regulations are proposed to be changed. Following is a summary of the proposed changes to regulations affecting "long-term" (up to 10 years) mining operations. 1. [934.05] An extensive list of special mining site plan submittal requirements is proposed. The list requires data and analysis that address groundwater impacts, water quality and discharge impacts, dust and noise impacts, and road and bridge impacts. Several items on the list are allowed to be submitted after the project's initial TRC (Technical Review Committee) review. Those "delayed" items include the NPDES pollution prevention plan, the hydrology report and recommendations, the dust and spillage control plan, and the engineer's cost estimate to restore the site. The submittal requirements relating to water quality and groundwater impacts are intended to mirror information that applicants are already required to provide to the SJRWMD and thereby ensure that the site plan desigu will meet SJRWMD requirements. During the mining workshops, it was evident that the public has major concerns regarding groundwater impacts, even though such impacts are addressed by the SJRWMD during its permitting process. In addition, staff believes that, during the county's review and approval process, applicants have an interest in establishing a record that their proposed project plans will meet groundwater requirements. The submittal requirements described above will only partially address the groundwater impacts issue if no expert review is involved. Requiring an expert evaluation will serve county decision makers, the public, and the applicant by providing independent confirmation during the county's review and approval process that groundwater impacts are adequately addressed. To address this issue, the PZC's recommendation is to require applicants to submit a SJRWMD permit up front as an alternative to the expert review requirement proposed in the ordinances. Although an "early" SJRWMD permit would provide evidence that an expert review had been F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\ : 934 and 971 LOR Amendment.rtf 6

9 conducted by SJRWMD staff on permit drawings, it would not necessarily guarantee that an expert reviewed the site plan to ensure that the hydrology report recommendations are incorporated into the site plan design. Consequently, staff favors the proposed county-hired expert review requirement. As an alternative to the staff and PZC recommendations, the BCC could adopt a regulation that gives applicants the option to either obtain a SJRWMD permit up front or submit a hydrology report and a fee for expert review. 2. [934.06( 1)] A sequence of procedural steps is proposed which requires applicants to meet up-front with the SIR WMD to discuss discharge and groundwater issues and to meet up-front with Public W arks/traffic Engineering to discuss the project haul route and adequacy of roads, culverts, and bridges. The proposed sequence also requires applicants to attend a "pre-construction"/site work meeting with staff. These steps are intended to have major issues addressed up-front in the design process and to provide better coordination between operators and staff prior to project commencement. 3. [934.06(3)] Groundwater and environmental standards are proposed. These standards include a prohibition on excavating down to the confining layer, a prohibition on blasting and use of active chemical agents, a requirement to plug or upgrade on-site deep wells, and establishment of a series of special setbacks between permanent excavation pit areas and deep wells, preserved onsite wetlands and native uplands, known off-site wetlands and native uplands, public conservation areas, and city or county shallow aquifer potable supply wells. 4. [934.06(4)] Traffic and nuisance mitigation standards are proposed. These standards require noise-making equipment to be physically buffered or fitted with special mufflers, provide specifications for upgrading and maintaining unpaved haul routes, establish thresholds and specifications for paving haul routes, establish an LOS standard and evaluation methodology that uses passenger car equivalents (PCEs) for project truck traffic, require operators to limit the peak frequency of truck trips leaving the mining site to provide "gaps" in truck traffic, and require operators sharing haul routes to obtain approval of a shared maintenance plan from Public Works. The road maintenance standards, paving threshold, PCE requirement, and peak truck trip frequency standard were derived from research performed by Public Works. Research included empirical data from existing mining operations within the county as well as information and standards from ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) and other traffic engineering sources. 5. [934.07] Mining permit regulations are proposed to be updated and clarified to require as-built surveys at project site restoration, to clarify that the compliance security amount is based on the entire mining operation area of activity, to require the restoration security amount to be based on 125% of an engineer's estimate to restore the site, and to require security to be in the same form allowed for subdivision maintenance security. 6. [934.09] Compliance and enforcement standards and processes are proposed that would: specifically authorize the county to impose penalties, including stop work orders, security forfeiture, and mining permit termination provide for and incentivize immediate correction of violations provide for a BCC penalty determination hearing process after a certain number of violations are not immediately corrected F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\B7C 934 and 971 LDR Amendment.rtf 7

10 provide for a progression of penalties, up to forfeiture of all posted security and mining permit termination, based on repeat violations. In conjunction with this LDR amendment, staff proposes that the BCC adopt a resolution setting the annual mining permit renewal fee at $ The new fee will cover the cost of two annual site inspections and review of the annual mining permit renewal request by Public Works and Code Enforcement staff. The current fee, $125 for the initial permit and $62 for annual permit renewals, has not been re-visited in 18 years and is not sufficient to cover the cost of staff time. Therefore, the fee needs to be updated. In addition to the mining permit fee update, staff proposes that the county establish a variable fee, capped at $10,000, to pay for a county-hired consultant to review and comment on project hydrology reports. Information obtained from an engineering firm (CDM) used by county Utility Services indicates that such reviews could involve work hours, and could cost $6,500 to $8,500. The attached resolution (see attachment #5), if approved by the BCC, would establish the mining permit fee and hydrology report expert review fee proposed by staff. 7. [934.11] A section on existing mining operations is proposed which states that pre-existing mines may continue to operate as approved and permitted, but will be subject to: any new annual mining permit renewal fees, new security form standards in the event that the mining operator changes posted security, new compliance and enforcement standards, and new site restoration/project close-out procedures. 8. [971.22] Changes to specific land use criteria for mines are proposed to limit mining sites to AG- 1, AG-2, and AG-3 areas, to require a mailed courtesy notice to owners of properties within a large area around the mining site and along the proposed project haul route, and to waive the county's fee for any appeal of a PZC mining application decision. The appeal fee waiver will apply only if ordinance "Version 2", which keeps mines as an administrative permit use, is adopted. The attached chart on proposed regulations and the PZC's 38 recommendations (see attachment #12) provides a complete analysis of how each of the 38 recommendations is addressed by the proposed LDR amendment. That analysis demonstrates that all 3 8 recommendations are addressed. Affordable Housing The proposed ordinance will increase the cost of applying for and obtaining approval for new "long term" (up to I 0 years) mining operations. Consequently, the proposed ordinance is likely to increase to some extent the costs oflocally mined materials such as common fill. Any such cost increases may increase costs for housing, including affordable housing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners announce its intention to adopt "Version I" of the proposed mining regulation LDR amendments, which includes changing mining to a special exception use, and announce that its second and final hearing on the proposed ordinance will be held on December 19, 2008 at 9:00am in the County Commission Chambers. F:\Community Deve!opment\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\ 8: 934 and 971 LDR Amendment. rtf 8

11 If the Board decides to keep mining as an administrative permit use, then the Board should: I. Adopt "Version 2" of the proposed mining regulation LDR amendments, which keeps mining as an administrative permit use. 2. Adopt the attached resolution establishing an updated mining permit fee and a hydrology report expert review fee, and 3. Terminate the mining moratorium as of the effective date of the LDR amendment ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: I. Minutes from the January 15, 2008 BCC Meeting 2. Minutes from the January 24, 2008 PZC Meeting 3. Minutes from the April9, 2008 PZC Mining Workshop 4. Minutes from the May 22, 2008 PZC Mining Workshop 5. Minutes from the July 14,2008 PZC Mining Workshop 6. Minutes from the August 13, 2008 PZC Mining Workshop 7. Minutes from the August 14, 2008 PZC Meeting 8. Final Consensus Recommendations List from the PZC 9. Draft Indian River County Mining BMPs 10. Health Department II. Draft Minutes from the October 23, 2008 PSAC Meeting 12. Chart: Proposed Mining Regulation Amendments Implementation ofpzc 38 Recommendations 13. Version 1: Mining changed to special exception use 14. Version 2: Mining remains administrative permit use 15. Resolution establishing new mining-related fees 16. Draft Minutes of the November 19,2008 PZC Meeting 17. List of Ordinance Changes Since the November 19 1 h Meeting APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOR:, / 1. \. 'i[jtlt By :...fll!...i,.!,ol..ll.d~:lj...:!..:..c!...!..<l~~+- Indian River Co, Date Admin. Legal Budget /Z{t ox Dept. Risk Mgr. I f F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ BCC\r:Q:: 934 and 971 LOR Amendment.rtf 9

12 Joseph Paladin, President of Black Swan Consulting, agreed that a Consultant should not be hired, and did not think the P&Z should be used to review this process. He thought the Board needed to get a fresh set of eyes and/or create a new committee with staff and outside experts. Vice Chairman Davis understood Mr. Paladin's thoughts, but thought it was important for P&Z staff to understand why we have the LDRs that we have whenever they make their decisions. Robert Adair, Chairman of the Agricultural Mvisory Committee (AAC), asked if the Board could possibly consider allowing the AAC a venue with P&Z to address the matter. process. Mr. Paladin and the Board debated whether to have P&Z involved in the review Ralph Evans, 1420 Shorelands Drive West, said neither he nor Mr. Paladin was speaking on behalf of Wild Turkey Mines. He also thought it was not a good idea to have P&Z be a part of the review process. process. Gary Smith, 6625 West 82"d Avenue, supported P&Z being a part of the review Chairman Bowden suggested they could consider enlarging the P&Z membership for this process. Director Keating responded to questions from Vice Chairman Davis as to how staff would like to proceed with this matter, based on discussions and suggestions heard today Commissioner O'Bryan confirmed with Attorney Collins that this being a legislative matter they were free to have discussions with residents, staff and mine operators, but not to talk to other Commissioners about this until it comes to a public meeting. 17 January 15, ATTACHMENT 1

13 ' John Sanders, 'h Avenue, asked if the Department of Transportation's decision in February would change the way this Committee might look at things. Attorney Collins explained that it was not a DOT decision but a task force appointed by the Governor and they were supposed to make a report to the Legislature by February 1, 2008, and staff would be on top of that to make it available to whatever groups are involved in this discussion. Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see a place where any interested party could register their ideas and give a snail mail or address, and they would in tum be notified of every workshop and/or meetings, so they would know where rne.etings are and would be able to give their input. Chairman Bowden thought it was a good idea. MOTION WAS MADE by" Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Davis, to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Flescher supported staffs recommendation that P&Z would be the best-suited entity to do this review. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion carried unanimously. The Board approved and directed staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission to initiate the process and conduct the activities outlined in the backup memorandum dated January 8, 2008, recommended. ll.b. EMERGENCY SERVICES- NONE January 15, ATTP.CHMENT 1

14 PZC. Commissioners Matters (7:41 :15) Mr. Weick mentioned he had contacted Mr. Boling re mg County regulations on constructing windmills as an altern energy source, because he felt it would be a good idea to hav omething beforehand before Florida Power and Light approached t ounty with any ideas. Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planni irector, explained the only types of windmill structures he had s were accessory structures to existing residences. He related C ty height requirements specifically exempted several different type structures such as steeples, windmills and silos. He clarified a w mill farm as an electric generating facility would be classified as ch and would be treated as a light or heavy utility use. fter lengthy discussion, the members recommended staff look into situation to make sure the County was covered in the event windmills became an issue in the future. Planning Matters (7:49:33) * Mr. Boling recapped on January 15, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had approved staff's recommendation for the P&Z to be the committee managing a process involving public workshops to review mining regulations. He gave a PowerPoint presentation with background information on mining, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Boling advised a State task force was currently holding meetings to study mining-related issues, and a report was expected to be issued on February 1, He outlined possible recommendations that could come from the task force, as contained in his PowerPoint presentation and the backup on file in the Commission Office. Discussion ensued. Chairman Hamner introduced Mr. Tom Lockwood as someone who had been mining in the County for a long time and would present the P&Z with information they might carry into the workshops. Ms. Reuter left the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 3 PZC/Approved January 24, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008 Agendas & Minutes/ Minutes.doc 12 ATTACHMENT 2

15 Mr. Lockwood gave a brief history of his experience in mining in the County since the early 1970's and described what was entailed in a wet mining operation. Mr. Chuck Kramer discussed the different degrees of rock and other material and how they were excavated. The logistics of the various phases of mining were discussed. Mr. Boling noted County code called for a ten year maximum life of mining operations, so in the scheme of things they were temporary by nature, leaving lakes to serve residential or golf course communities. Mr. Kramer talked about the importance of buffering and set-backs to deal with the noise and visual effects of mining. Discussion followed about dewatering and hydraulic pumps. Mr. Boling stated most of the complaints he had heard from residents were not about what was happening on site, but as a result of truck traffic and the dust that was created. Discussion ensued about possible remedies to control the situation. Mr. Boling distributed a draft schedule for review of mining regulations, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus that any Wednesday in February, 2008 would be a good time to visit other sites during a mobile workshop. Mr. Boling agreed to coordinate with the BCC office for County Commissioners to attend, and the P&Z members to come up with an appropriate date. Mr. Bob Adair, a member of the IRC Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC}, offered his services as a speaker at a future workshop. Mr. Smith suggested dealing with enforcement connected with the various issues after each workshop. Dr. Baker felt monitoring should be included along with enforcement. Mr. Boling thought it would be a good idea at the end of every workshop to discuss what regulations might be applied to each aspect of mining they were dealing with. 4 PZC/Approved January 24, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008 Agendas & Minutes/ Minutes.doc 13 ATTACHMENT 2

16 ' ' ' The members said they preferred to hold the workshops in the evening if possible. Mr. Boling advised on January 31, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. at the Richardson Center there would be a rneeting on school concurrency. He referred to information he had passed out about a presentation by Dr. James Nicholas on transfer of development rights to be held at noon on the same day at an AAC meeting, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Adair came forward and announced Ms. Sidney Backus would be in the County on Thursday, February 7, 2008, and suggested she could make a presentation on hydroecology to the P&Z concurrent with its meeting, and have members of the AAC sit in. Mr. Boling advised the P&Z would not be meeting until February 14, He suggested coordinating having Ms. Backus address the AAC in the afternoon and having a workshop that same night. Chairman Hamner suggested Mr. Adair schedule something and let the P&Z members know so they could come to his meeting. Attorney' Matters (9:36:51) There were none. p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 George Hamner, Chairman Date Reta Smith, Recording Secretary Date 5 PZC/Approved January 24, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008 Agendas & Minutes/ Minutes.doc 14 AtTACHMENT 2.

17 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON GROUNDWATER & SURFACE WATER/DISCHARGE IMPACTS FROM MINING There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website )N\NW.ircgov.com/Boards/PZC/2008. Present were members: Chairman George Hamner, Member-at Large; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Lawrence, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Richard Baker, Member-at-Large. Absent were Gerard Weick, District 2 Appointee and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (both excused). Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental and Code Enforcement; Jim Davis, Public Works Director; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (12:58:01) Chairman Hamner called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. Staff Remarks (12:58:56) Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, explained today's workshop would focus solely on water related issues for mining operations, and future workshops would be addressing traffic and nuisances, compatibility and notice and the type of process for mining applications and compliance and enforcement. He briefly discussed information contained in the staff report in the backup on file in the Commission Office. PZC Mining/Approved 1 April 9, 2008 F:/BCC/A\1 Committees/PZC/2008Minutes/PZC040908Mining.doc

18 Presentation by Dr. Sydney Bacchus (1:03:52) Dr. Sydney Bacchus, Applied Environmental Services, LLC, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Adverse Environmental Impacts of Mining in Indian River County, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Smith noted there was an appreciable loss of pine trees after the 2004 hurricane season, and wondered how Dr. Bacchus specifically determined the effect of mining on pine trees in the County. Dr. Bacchus responded it was fairly easy to evaluate areas subjected to hurricane damage as there had been extensive studies on the resilience of pine trees to hurricane wind forces, and they had mechanisms to withstand those types of impacts. She maintained damage occurred because the roots were rotting below ground, which placed stress on the tree and it started dying from the top down and if a wind came through when it was in that state it would snap the tops off the trees. Dr. Bacchus opined everyone thought the damage was from wind, but in fact it was because the trees had been under chronic stress for years before the hurricanes came through. Presentation by Dr. Les Bromwell (1 :34:26) Dr. Les Bromwell, BCI Engineers, gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Discussion followed about monitoring and measuring the environmental impacts of mining (2:03:45). Dr. Bacchus urged the County to request backup documentation from the other agencies involved with the technical aspects of mining. Discussion ensued regarding permitting (2:25:03). Dr. Bacchus recommended the County step back from the piecemeal mine-by-mine approach and have an agency such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) do an assessment of present conditions in order to have a baseline to work from. She added the Army Corps of Engineers was required by federal law to do cumulative impacts analysis any time they were going to issue a permit. Sink holes were discussed (2:36:26). PZC Mining/Approved 2 April 9, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Minutes/PZC040908Mining.doc 1 6 ATTACHMENT 3 '

19 Chairman Hamner opened the public hearing at 3:25 p.m. Dr. Bob Adair, Chairman of the IRC Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) (2:49:55), thought the idea of the County doing a hydrological study was in order. He mentioned Dr. Lewis Murray of the USGS had attended an AAC meeting in February, 2008 and said they would be interested in doing the study. He related the AAC made a recommendation for such a study to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), and suggested it would help if the P&Z reinforced this recommendation. He discussed findings of a report the County had done in Dr. Adair agreed there was a problem with lack of monitoring as outlined in Dr. Bacchus' presentation, and felt the use of infra red analysis might be used to look at spectral changes that could be occurring. He added besides the environmental impact, it was important not to have an agricultural impact from mining and urged caution of how the County treated its water supply as far as the Floridan aquifer was concerned. Mr. Peter O'Bryan, IRC Commissioner (2:56:21 ), referred to a copy of a permit issued on October 9, 2007 to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for the North Cypress Reserve, contained in the backup on file in the Commission Office, and noted water level monitoring was not initiated until April 9, 2008 after excavation had begun. He related when Dr. Murray spoke at the AAC meeting he had recommended one full year of water level monitoring prior to excavation. Discussion ensued about pre-monitoring before excavation began in a potential mining area. Mr. Harvey Wheeler, 1464 Seahouse Street, Sebastian (3:03:25), was concerned about benzene residual created by blasting. Mr. Boling stated staffs research indicated no blasting would be needed for any materials mined in this area, and he anticipated a regulation of no blasting. Mr. Russell Herman, 586 Redwood Court, Sebastian, representing the Indian River Neighborhood Association (3:09:24), spoke about the necessity of keeping discharge out of the canals and the St. Sebastian River. Mr. David Gunter, Chairman of the Soil and Water Conservation District (S&WCD) and Superintendent of the Indian River Farms Water PZC Mining/Approved 3 April 9, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Minutes/PZC040908Mining.doc 1 7 ATTACHMENT 3

20 Control District (IRFWCD) (3:13:39), stated the S&WCD had pushed for zero-discharge mines and recommended if mining was done outside the IRFWCD the County should look at making sure any isolated wetlands near the site remained hydrated through the mining operation. Dr. Bacchus outlined why, in her professional opinion, there would be adverse environmental impacts if you prevented all discharges from a mine site (3:19:55). Mr. Chuck Kramer, U.S. 1, Sebastian (3:21:14), felt if there was to be no offsite discharge the mining operations would have to be expanded to a large degree in order to get storage. He observed even when excavating a 20-acre pit over a period of time you would not be able to contain the water on site unless you had a large amount of real estate. He wondered what would be the ramifications of creating an artificial or man-made wetland by retaining the water on a parcel of property. Lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Jim Davis, IRC Public Works Director (3:40:15), related over the 30 years he had worked for the County there had been excavations for sand mines or public works projects in areas adjacent to isolated wetlands, and in all those types of projects most of the material was used on County projects. He observed any mining operation had a different quality of material coming out of the operation initially and that material was sold at a very cheap price, usually to the County, to be used on its projects Mr. Davis gave an example of the Vera Lake Estates subdivision where they were working adjacent to a wetland and were told to build a vertical curtail wall of clay material to isolate the wetland from the excavation, and that somewhat vertical layer of clay reduced the drawdown around the perimeter of the area. He felt some of the material coming from the mines could be segregated and used to prohibit and reduce the lateral influence of the drawdown of the water in those areas. Chairman Hamner closed the public hearing at 4:20 p.m. Mr. Jim Gallagher, 766 Holden Avenue, Sebastian (3:47:04) urged the members to include in its recommendations more continuous monitoring and share this information with SJRWMD and other permitting groups. PZC Mining/Approved 4 April 9, 2008 F:IBCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Minutes/PZC040908Mining.doc 1 8 ATTACHMENT 3

21 Discussion followed about the types of data the County might require an applicant to provide on the area around the immediate vicinity of a potential mining site, and what would be the parameters (3:54:53). Mr. Lawrence felt the P&Z might recommend the BCC look at getting the USGS involved as a start. Mr. Smith thought given the environmental issues and the current times there was a reason the County should obtain extensive baseline data, even though he acknowledged it would cost quite a bit of money. Mr. Boling summarized he was hearing recommendations for a countywide baseline study, looking at specific requirements for a hydrological report and analysis with recommendations, and how far it could go within a reasonable cost. Chairman Hamner added perhaps staff could look at no discharge and work backwards to include Dr. Bacchus' concerns, and also look at the hydrological impacts on wetlands on a site. Ms. Keys wondered if a seismic profile would be something the applicant could supply. Dr. Bromwell stated there were relatively inexpensive techniques, including ground penetrating radar, electromagnetic imaging and cross hole seismic profiles, that could be done if it was felt the site required it. He thought the County could tell an applicant what information was necessary in order to feel comfortable the impacts would not extend beyond their boundary, and might even suggest methods that could be used to obtain this information. Discussion followed (4:03:03). p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 George Hamner, Chairman Date Reta Smith, Recording Secretary Date PZC Mining/Approved 5 April 9, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Minutes/PZC040908Mining.doc 1 9 ATTACHMENT 3

22 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON TRAFFIC AND NUISANCE IMPACTS FROM MINING There was a meeting of the Indian River County {IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Thursday, May at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, h Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website ' :. r.,... Present were members: Chairman George Hamner, Member-at Large; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Gerard Weick, District 2 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Lawrence, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Richard Baker, Member-at-Large. Absent was Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (excused). Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Jim Davis, Public Works Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (8:03:47) Chairman Hamner called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. Planning Staff Remarks (8:04:26) Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, gave an update on what had transpired since the last workshop on April 9, Mr. Boling reviewed the information contained in his memorandum dated May 7, 2008, and gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file in the Commission Office. PZC Mining/Approved 1 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag~WPZCMiningWkshop doc Z U Jl.TTACHMENT 4\

23 Presentation by Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director (8:14:19) Mr. Chris Mora, IRC Assistant Public Works Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Presentation by Chuck Cramer, Fischer & Sons (8:27:24) Mr. Chuck Cramer, Mining Operator, discussed practices used by Fischer & Sons under the current ordinances in order to minimize dust, blowing sand and noise on the site itself. He described turbo-type mufflers used to quiet the sound on standing equipment such as pumps. Mr. Cramer outlined policies for loading of material on trucks and criteria used by his company regarding its employees and subcontractors, which he felt were common sense issues. Discussion followed about monitoring road maintenance and the condition of routes used for mining operations.. Mr. Weick asked Mr. Cramer what the hours of operation were at Fischer & Sons. Mr. Cramer responded the mines were open weekdays from 7:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. and the trucks ran 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with early mornings being the peak hours. Mr. Fletcher mentioned he would like to see where the coquina rock deposits were located in the County. Mr. Cramer said he would provide a copy of a packet designating the resources which he had received from the State. Public Comments (9:26:44) Chairman Hamner opened the public hearing at 10:19 a.m. Mr. Steve Chavis, Vice President of ROD Logistics operating the Hammond mine on 82nd Avenue (9:26:59), stated their area of operation covered a total of 72 acres and they were limited to 36 acres, which created a stockpile issue if the heights were changed. He advised his company was now using a water truck and a motor grader was running full time on the roads, adding he had established better communication with the IRC Public Works Department to resolve any issues in a timely manner. PZC Mining/Approved 2 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZCMiningWkshop doc 21 ATTACHMENT 4

24 Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director, noted ROD Logistics was the new operator of the Hammond mine and had been there less than six months. He specified the problem early on was both the mines on 82nd Avenue were running trucks south, which was not on the haul route. Mr. Keating related staff had initiated action to pull their compliance bond and confirmed there had been far fewer complaints since January when that action was taken. Ms. Keys asked Mr. Chavis if he thought the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) were adequate to resolve the problems or should other regulations be added. Mr. Chavis felt the present LDRs would cover it as long as common sense practices were followed. He was not in favor of over-regulation to create a situation where the product became so costly it could not be marketed. Mr. Steve Smith, owner of the Ranch Road Lake sand mine on 82nd Avenue (9:40:42), stated just over a year ago his company had put about six inches of road-based type material on 82nd Avenue and was now travelling on the north end of the road was like driving on a highway. Discussion followed about the condition of the road. Ms. Linda Mitchell, th Street, Vera Beach (9:15:50), acknowledged there had not been a lot of recent complaints about 82nd Avenue partly because it was better than it used to be and also because the mining workshops were occurring people were trying to work together to improve the situation. She disagreed the north end of 82nd Avenue was like driving on a highway because of significant problems with mud at certain times, along with truck drivers not following regulations. Ms. Mitchell felt prevention and enforcement were the keys, adding in the past this had not been looked at as closely as it should have. Mr. Frank Weigell, nd Street, Vera Beach (9:51 :24), thought tracking pads should be required in the mine areas just prior to the trucks getting on the roadways. He suggested the County maintain the roads and charge a toll to the mining operators based on axle loadings, tire pressures and the distance driven by the trucks. Mr. Jim Davis, IRC Public Works Director, related in any one year there were probably four or five mine operations and his department did not have sufficient resources to maintain haul routes in several locations throughout the County. PZC Mining/Approved 3 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&~iQIPZCMiningWkshop doc. Z t.. ATTACHMENT 4

25 Discussion followed. Ms. Bea Gardner, th Lane, Vero Beach (9:58:11 ), felt it was necessary to have a Best Management Practices (BMP) booklet and suggested the mining companies put together a guide in order for the County to see where the regulations needed to be adjusted and improved upon. Ms. Mary McGuire Smith, 6625 West 82"d Avenue, Vero Beach (1 0:03:35), opined the Fischer operation seemed to be the model that was not being adhered to by the other miners. She said there were problems with the amount of truck traffic and speeding when there was no enforcement around. Ms. McGuire Smith reported the condition of eastbound 69th Street had deteriorated considerably and trucks were driving on the wrong side of the road. She related she ran a horseback riding operation and had lost 65% of her business because of interference created by the mining operations. Ms. McGuire Smith wanted a limitation on the amount of truck traffic and the number of mines allowed in one area. Lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. AI Videri, Westside Villas (1 0:21 :12), wanted the Board to look at the hours of operation and the number of trucks that would be allowed up and down 82" Avenue. Mr. Harry Van Wormer, th Street, Vero Beach (10:25:49), complained about the deterioration of 69th Street and speeding of trucks from the Hammond mines. Chairman Hamner called a recess at 11:27 a.m. and the meeting reconvened at 11:36 a.m. Mr. Bob Bruce, North A-1-A, Vero Beach (1 0:31 :30), wanted a definition of a haul route. Mr. Boling said it was the primary route of trucks leaving a mining site and it must be on collector or arterial roads unless a local road served non-residential uses. Mr. Bruce stated the problem was the truckers and not the mines, because the mines seemed to be relatively well regulated. He noted the more trips a trucker made in a day the more money he made, which created a problem with the flow rate. Mr. Bruce mentioned he had felt a lot PZC Mining/Approved 4 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZCMiningWkshop doc 2 3 ATTACHMENT 4

26 of vibration from trucks in his house during the Sebastian Inlet sand haul project. Ms. Suzanne Franskey, y!h Street, Vero Beach (1 0:35:20), described the dust, environmental pollution and the condition of the roads around the mines. She said vibration from mining trucks had caused foundation cracks in her residence and she was against industrial mining being allowed in AG-1 zoning. Chairman Hamner closed the public hearing at 11:53 a.m. Wrap Up and Direction to Staff (10:48:20) Chairman Hamner went over the fourteen potential recommendations of staff as outlined in the backup on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Weick suggested the stockpile height and amount of area mined area at any given time should be reduced. He wanted turbo style mufflers to be included in recommendation number four. Mr. Fletcher wanted recommendation number five clarified to mean explosive blasting. Chairman Hamner did not see how it would be possible to monitor truck fill levels to ensure trucks left mining sites with little or no loose material, as outlined in recommendation number six. After some discussion it was decided truck fill levels should be deleted but staff should look at methods and alternatives to ensure there would be no spillage. Chairman Hamner thought rather than requiring applicants and operators to pay for random law enforcement monitoring on all haul routes as outlined in recommendation 11, staff needed to look at how the County could increase random law enforcement monitoring. Mr. Smith suggested requiring the trucking firms to have GPS devices installed in their trucks. He noted it did not cost a lot for software associated with a GPS system and felt the County should consider this as a way to monitor truck speeds. Discussion ensued. Mr. Weick suggested limiting the total number of runs on any one haul route. PZC Mining/Approved 5 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZCMiningWkshop doc 2 4 ATTACHMENT 4

27 Lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Keating advised 82"d Avenue was under design to run from County Road 510 to State Road 60, with completion depending on funding. Dr. Baker thought it would be a good idea if the County decided where to allow mines and then build the roads accordingly. Chairman Hamner suggested adding criteria to look at distance between mines and agreed a BMP document should be created outlining out what the County expected from mining operators. Mr. Weick wanted to reconsider hours of operation for mines, depending on location. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m. George Hamner, Chairman Date Reta Smith, Recording Secretary Date PZC Mining/Approved 6 May 22, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZCMiningWkshop doc 2 5 ATTACHMENT 4

28 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON COMPATIBILITY AND NOTICE RELATED TO MINING There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, th Street, Vera Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website Present were members: Chairman George Hamner, Member-at Large; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Gerard Weick, District 2 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Lawrence, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Richard Baker, Member-at-Large. Absent were Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (both unexcused). Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Jim Davis, Public Works Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (12:56:55) Chairman Hamner called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. Planning Staff Presentation (12:58:43) Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation on compatibility and notice issues for mining operations, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Presentation by Public Works Staff (1 :25:30) Mr. Chris Mora, IRC Assistant Public Works Director, reviewed information on trucking expenses related to mine location contained in his memorandum dated July 7, 2008, which is Attachment #6 in the backup on file in the Commission Office. PZC Mining/Approved 1 July 14, 2008 F :/BCC/ All Committees/PZC/ Agenda&Minutes2008/PZM ngwksp doc 2 6 ATTACHMENT 5 i

29 Mr. Jim Davis, IRC Public Works Director (1 :30:59), stated there were two primary users of mining products in the County; those being the private sector for construction and the public sector for the unimproved road network, parks and other County projects. He commented if the required fill locations were moved further out trucking costs would increase because it would require more fuel and increase risk management factors Mr. Davis observed most of the vibration and wear and tear on the roads from trucks was caused by impact loads, and the smoother the surface, the less impact and vibration occurred. He mentioned the only complaints the County had received about vibration was when a road was being built and vibratory rollers were used to compact the material. Mr. Davis opined if a dump truck was traveling on a poorly maintained road with a lot of wash boarding there might be some impact from vibration that could carry up to one-half mile away. Ms. Keys asked if vibrations could cause damage to the structure of a building. Mr. Davis acknowledged if the subsurface of the ground was very dense and consolidated the vibration would carry further; however, in his opinion; most of the sandy soil substrate west of the One Mile Ridge would not transmit vibration much further than one quarter to one-half mile. Chairman Hamner thought the key was to reroute the trucks and maintain the roads and speed of the trucks. Discussion ensued. Ms. Keys wanted to know if it was possible to get information about the impact of vibrations on an asphalt road versus sand, because one of the regulations might be to require a road to be paved if there was going to be a mining operation. Mr. Boling agreed to take on this assignment. Public Comments (1 :51 :43) Chairman Hamner opened the public hearing at 2:27 p.m. Ms. Susan Boyd, th Street (1 :52:45), disclosed she was a candidate for IRC Commissioner, District 1; however, since she lived off of 82nd Avenue she was affected by the mines. She pointed out mining trucks going into a development to build a house would only be doing so intermittently, whereas a person living on a mining egress route where the trucks would be going past their home six or seven days a week for 10 years would be in a completely different situation. Ms. Boyd suggested PZC Mining/Approved 2 July 14, 2008 F :/BCC/ All Committees/PZC/ Agenda~ utes2008/pzm ngwksp doc ATTACHMENT 5 I

30 people residing all along the egress routes should be notified about mining applications because they could still be affected. Mr. Victor Knight, 3295 Ranch Road (1 :55:09), did not look at 10 years as being a temporary use and found it troubling that mining was compatible in AG-1, 2 and 3 districts if properly regulated. He felt the AG-1 district needed to be looked at as distinctly different because there was very little legitimate agriculture left in the AG-1 district, and it really had become a low-density residential district. He suggested eliminating fullscale mining from the AG-1 district and making sure it was contained west of Interstate 95 (1-95). area. Discussion followed about limiting the number of active mines to one Ms. Linda Mitchell, th Street (2:1 0:26), expressed concern about compliance and enforcement. Ms. Amy Banov, a resident of the 69th Street area (2:12:37), felt it was important to look at the cumulative impact of various mines in one area and agreed about notification to people living along the haul route. She suggested using AG-1 as a buffer zone for mining operations in the AG-2 and 3 areas. Mr. AI Videri, West Side Villas (2:15:04), wanted the Board to look at the hours of operation and the number of trucks that would be allowed up and down 82nd Avenue. Ms. Suzanne Franskey, th Street (2:18:29), described severe foundation cracks at her residence and said this had occurred only when the mining started. She noted 82nd Street and 69th Avenue were both in horrible condition and expressed concern about safety and welfare of residents. Mr. Shawn Sexton, th Street (2:24:44), related the IRC Agricultural Advisory Committee had made a recommendation for a hydrological study of the County to be done to establish base line information to determine impacts to the groundwater table when mining occurred. He recommended any mines contiguous to the Sexton Ranch should require monitoring wells on his property, with the expense to be borne by the miner. Discussion ensued. PZC Mining/Approved 3 July 14, 2008 F :/BCC/ All Committees/PZC/ Agenda&M inutes2008/pzmngwksp doc 2 8 ATTACHMENT 5 t

31 ATTACHMENT 5! Ms. Sharon Cowan, "d Avenue Southwest (2:30:40), stated she had lived in the area before the mining operations and resented having them forced on her. She urged the members to consider AG-1 as residential. Mr. Chuck Cramer, U.S. Highway #1 (2:32:45), said well monitoring on adjacent property to a mine was a tough issue as some owners got upset because of possible wetlands on their property. Chairman Hamner thought under the special exception use, monitoring was something that could be required if the landowner requested it. Mr. Cramer felt vibration from truck traffic on a stabilized road was not relevant to causing structural damage to a home, and pump vibration was minimal at best. Mr. Cramer did not advocate confining mining west of 1-95 because the trucks would still use some of the same routes to get into the urban service area. Mr. Fred Mensing (3:38:11) disclosed he was a candidate for IRC Commissioner, District 1, and agreed the surface of the road determined what vibration was transmitted off the road. He noted sand miners did not have the deep pockets everyone thought they did and sand mines were a necessity if the area was going to grow. Ms. Suzanne Franskey (2:40:57) reiterated health, safety and welfare should supersede any cash value. Chairman Hamner closed the public hearing at 3:15 p.m. Chairman Hamner wondered about phasing in a mining operation to start at a point farthest away from potential residential areas. Mr. Boling felt this went back to determining what the appropriate volume of truck traffic was for the types of roads being used. Discussion followed. Chairman Hamner opined the biggest issue was whether or not to continue allowing mining in the AG-1 area. Surface water discharging was discussed. Mr. Boling recapped what came out of today's input was for staff to look for studies on vibration and revise the notice requirements on primary haul routes. PZC Mining/Approved 4 July 14, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/Agenda~ utes2008/pzmngwksp doc

32 Mr. Weick wondered about restricting jake brakes. Mr. Boling felt the only place to restrict such brakes was on site since it might constitute a traffic safety issue off site. Mr. Weick observed a lot of covers on the trucks were torn up and thought it might be a good idea to spray loads with a binding material to prevent dust from coming off the trucks as they proceeded down a road. Mr. Boling acknowledged one of the suggested requirements was a control plan for spillage, which got back to the Best Management Practices. Mr. Weick wondered about limiting the size of the load to 15 yards as a maximum instead of 17, and reducing the existing 20 acre phase-in to 10 acres so there would be less impact. Mr. Boling clarified he had not found the 20 acre phase-in being practiced in any other county and felt it was fairly restrictive, adding he did not know if less would work economically. Chairman Hamner believed the idea of changing from administrative permit to special exception was a step in the right direction because it would afford the County a lot more say-so on any given mine. p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 George Hamner, Chairman Date Reta Smith, Recording Secretary Date PZC Mining/Approved 5 July 14, 2008 F :/BCC/ All Committees/PZC/ Agenda&Minutes2008/PZM ngwksp doc 3 Q ATTACHMENT 5 I

33 ATTACHMENT " I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO MINING There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Wednesday, August at 1:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website Present were members: Chairman George Hamner, Member-at Large; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Gerard Weick, District 2 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Lawrence, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Richard Baker, Member-at-Large. Absent were Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (both unexcused). Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (12:53:54) Chairman Hamner called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. Planning Staff Presentation (12:55:14) Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation on compliance and enforcement for mining operations, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He distributed a sample flow chart outlining progressive consequences for violations, and a copy of this is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Boling recalled in the past a developer could pay cash in lieu of pulling a security instrument; however this may be something that would no longer be allowed. He pointed out there was an error on page seven of the staff report in the backup on file in the Commission Office, and instead of $5,000 as stated the required road maintenance bond amount had been increased to $10,000 per mile. PZC Mining/Approved 1 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\AII Committees\PZC\2008Ag~f\PZMining Minutes doc

34 Discussion followed. Presentation by Sergeant Jim Stewart, Sheriff's Office (1 :20:24) Sergeant Stewart related the complaints coming from the 82"d Avenue area were no greater than those received on dump trucks anywhere else in the County. Sergeant Stewart noted there were a total of seven citations issued in the area of 82"d Avenue from SR60 to 69th Street from January 1st through December 31st of He added there were a total of 10 dump truck complaints for that area called into the Sheriff's Office during that same period. Sergeant Stewart opined most the truck drivers were professional drivers who did a good job; however it was the perception of the public the dump trucks were big, noisy and scary. He mentioned the drivers were in constant radio contact and once a truck was pulled over by an officer, the rest of the drivers were alerted by the driver. Sergeant Stewart advised under the current contract the minimum was three hours, which meant the County paid an off-duty contract deputy for at least three hours to stop only one vehicle because everyone was on their best behavior after the first stop. Lengthy discussion ensued. Questions and Comments from Planning & Zoning Commissioners (1 :34:01) The pros and cons of using GPS systems to monitor dump trucks were discussed. Dr. Baker asked if there had been any violations on air quality coming from the dump trucks (1 :47:15). Sergeant Stewart responded there was a State statute allowing someone to be written up for emissions, but he did not know how many citations had been issued by the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Boling explained what was covered by road, compliance and restoration bonds (1 :52:02). Discussion followed. Mr. Boling reviewed the flow chart he had passed out earlier outlining progressive consequences for violations (1 :57:40). PZC Mining/Approved 2 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\Ail Committees\PZC\2008Ag&.fV1~\PZMining Minutes doc J '- ATTACHMENT b.

35 Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith referred to checking the ground water and discharges and asked if some type of monitoring to the abutting properties was proposed, and if so who would bear the cost of monitoring on the off-site (2:12:43). Mr. Boling explained with respect to ground water, monitoring wells went between the mining operation and adjacent properties and the data would be monitored by St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) or possibly the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), depending on the issues involved. He stated the agencies had their own monitoring and reporting requirements, and any complaints IRC staff received about neighboring wells would be referred to either SJRWMD or DEP. Mr. Boling said there were two ways of enforcing surface water discharge; one was the stormwater plan and pollution prevention plan locally investigated by IRC Public Works staff. He continued one of the potential regulation changes was to require base line monitoring at the discharge point before mining started and monitoring every year to see if there were changes at the outfall point. Public Comments (2:21 :54) Chairman Hamner opened the public hearing at 3:03 p.m. Mr. Bob Adair, Chairman of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (2:21 :56), advised the SJRWMD had two technicians doing water and surface discharge monitoring for the entire District. He related if the County did semi-annual dry and west season monitoring, the wells could be very easily measured to see how deep the water table was and this could be done by a relatively inexperienced technician. Mr. Adair added the Soil & Water Conservation District had a program where they would install water table observation wells for a nominal fee. Mr. Weick thought there should be unannounced inspections of mines in addition to twice a year. Mr. Todd Tardif, IRC Public Works Senior Stormwater Inspector and Enforcement Coordinator (2:28: 19), stated he already did random inspections of mines, and explained the procedure. Ms. Fran Denhart, Ranchland Mobile Home Park (2:37:33), wanted to know if the moratorium was taken off on January, 2009, what would be the route for the trucks from the two mines on 82nd Avenue. Chairman PZC Mining/Approved 3 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\AII Committees\PZC\2008Ag&k1~\PZMining Minutes doc j J ATTACHMENT 6

36 Hamner explained the current route would not change if the moratorium was lifted. Ms. Denhart complained the trucks were still coming down 82nd Avenue and did not think 82nd Avenue should be classified as a collector roadway. Mr. Boling advised Ms. Denhart to call IRC Code Enforcement if she saw the trucks using any road other than the designated haul route. Ms. Suzanne Franskey, th Street (2:42:57), noted Chapter 971 of regulations of specific land uses stated all mining sites shall have direct access to a collector or arterial roadway or to a local road that only serves non-residential uses. Chairman Hamner advised this issue would come up and be looked at later on. Ms. Franskey said she and her neighbors had called the Sheriff's Office many, many times and took issue with the fact there were only ten complaints as reported by Sergeant Stewart. She felt there was a lack of communication between the various offices in the County, and stressed AG-1 was not compatible with mining. Mr. Peter O'Bryan, IRC Commissioner District 4 (2:47:52), stated instead of using overtime deputies for enforcement he would prefer the County fund a full-time deputy who was Florida Department of Transportation trained and would work the same hours as the mine operations. He thought the deputy's salary could possibly be funded on a per acre charge to the applicants. Mr. Linda Mitchell, h Street (2:50:32), wanted a clarification of when existing mines would have to follow any new regulations Assistant County Attorney George Glenn (2:54:09) clarified existing mines would receive their renewal in September, 2008 and if new regulations were passed they could be applied immediately or perhaps some would take effect the following September when they came in for a renewal permit.. Mr. Bob Adair (2:55:51) commented the restoration bond of $1,000 per acre was low. Chairman Hamner closed the public hearing at 3:37 p.m. He called for a break and the meeting reconvened at 4:47p.m. PZC Mining/Approved 4 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\AII Committees\PZC\2008Age:r4\PZMining Minutes doci\TTACHMtNT 6

37 Wrap Up and Direction to Staff (2:58:49) Chairman Hamner asked the members if there was anybody who did not want mining in AG-1. Ms. Keys noted Attorney Glenn had advised there would be lawsuits if it was not allowed. Dr. Baker felt it was important to restrict the number of mines going on in an area at any one time. Mr. Smith thought the question should be if the County wanted to keep AG-1 in exactly the same areas or maybe AG-1 should be designated further out where there would not be residential issues. Chairman Hamner had no objection to the cash in lieu of bond if someone was in violation and the bond was pulled, he but he had an objection to an instant restart. He felt there should be a period of time where the offender would address with IRC staff what corrective action was being proposed, with a follow-up by IRC staff. Doctor Baker strongly suggested looking at the cost of implementing a GPS system. He felt it was important to get hydrology and seismic surveys done. Mr. Sean Sexton, yth Street (3:24:35), asked the members to consider baseline documentation on both the site and surrounding area. Discussion followed about requiring paved roads for mining operations. Chairman Hamner suggested adding paving should occur where possible, and not have it as absolute. Mr. Smith wondered if there was a way the members could prioritize what they thought should occur in sequence, based on costs. Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director (3:56:46), stated if the P&Z concurred with the 36 items on IRC staff's report it would be presented to the BCC as the general idea of what IRC staff was going to go forward with; however they would have to be incorporated into specific Land Development Regulations that come back to the P&Z and go to the BCC again. Mr. Weick thought Item #32 should be put first on the list. Chairman Hamner suggested a setback of 300 feet in any conservation areas, and wanted a 10 acre phase requirement, instead of 20 as outlined in Item #19. PZC Mining/Approved 5 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\AII Committees\PZC\2008Ag&Min\PZMining Minutes doc 3 5 ATTACHMENT 6

38 Discussion ensued. Chairman Hamner suggested the members call IRC staff if they had any further suggestions. Mr. Boling promised to an updated consensus list to the P&Z. p.m. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 George Hamner, Chairman Date Reta Smith, Recording Secretary Date PZC Mining/Approved 6 August 13, 2008 F:\BCC\AII Committees\PZC\2008Ag&A'J~\PZMining Minutes doc.1 0 ATTACHMENT b

39 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION There was a meeting of the Indian River County {IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, ih Street, Vera Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website Present were members: Chairman George Hamner, Member-at Large; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Gerard Weick, District 2 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George Lawrence, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Richard Baker, Member-at-Large. Absent was Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (unexcused). Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; John McCoy, Senior Planner; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (6:11 :16) Chairman Hamner called the meeting to order Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes (6:11 :48) ON MOTION BY Mr. La nee, SECONDED BY Mr. Smith, the me ers voted unanimously (7-0) to approv e minutes of the mining y 14, 2008, as presented. ~'ON BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Fie er, the members voted unanimously (7- to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 24, 2008, as presented. PZC/Approved 1 August 14, 2008 F:/BCC/AII Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZ Min.doc 3? ATTACHMENT 7

40 Mr. Fletcher observed the whole concept of the PDTND was to encourage people to walk from their homes to the commercial section, now it would be shifted up to the SR60 corridor. Mr. McCoy point the SR60 commercial was always part of the original conceptual pi Discussion ensued. Mr. Steve Melchiori, representing the Applicant 9:53), noted the site plan was approved for 85,000 square feet of co ercial area for the Town Center, which included some buildings wi a second floor. He explained the buildings were now proposed to b ingle story, which came to approximately square feet, and the ere asking to transfer the difference between and 85,866 s are feet. He stressed the commercial building area was capped at tal of 198,516 square feet. Mr. Chuck Mechling, Pointe W. t (6:52:20), related a local builder was interested in being involved in e residential construction of the east village, and he always built in a ted section. He noted the section was surrounded by canals on thre ides with no interconnectivity road-wise, so pedestrian traffic, etc. wou still exist in that area. Dr. Baker opined t PDTND was becoming more of a subdivision. Mr. Fletcher had a pro em because he felt the project was becoming a closed, gated commu ty, rather than what was originally proposed. Hamner opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and since to speak, the public hearing was closed. Keys stressed she would like to see this be the end to switching ercial properties from the Town Center to the SR60 section. 7:05:04 ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Smith, the members voted (5-2) to approve the Applicant's request. Mr. Fletcher and Dr. Baker in opposition. Commissioners Matters (7:05:10) Chairman Hamner referred to the Final Consensus Recommendations for the mining regulations workshops, a copy of which PZC/Approved 4 August14,2008 F :/BCC/ All Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZ Min.doc 38 ATTACHMENT 7 I

41 is on file in the Commission Office, and noted the P&Z had recommended a seismic study be conducted along with a hydrological study. Mr. Lawrence recommended including Best Management Practices (BMP) in Item #8. Chairman Hamner requested the acreage in parenthesis on Item #20 be changed to Mr. Lawrence recommended adding updated BMP to Item #30, so it was always current. Discussion followed about the cumulative effect of mining. Mr. Boling said he would add something into Item #7 about taking into consideration the cumulative impact, and expand Item #31 to emphasize the point. Ms. Keys recommended adding "or non-renewal" after the word "termination" in Item #36. Dr. Baker was in favor of requiring a 300 foot setback on all agricultural lands, not just public conservation land or easement as outlined in Item #15(C). Mr. Smith suggested striking out "funded by permit applicants" in Item #37, because he felt it negated any innovative GPS monitoring methods that might arise in the future. Mr. Boling said he would make the changes and the members a draft copy of the staff report before it went to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Planning Matters (7:23:55) Mr. Boling referred to the draft Transporta Element Preliminary Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) cant C! in the backup on file in the Commission Office. He felt it would a good idea to hold a joint workshop of the P&Z and the BC and suggested the morning of September 19, 2008; with a pos e second workshop to be held on September 30, Mr. Weick suggest some of the charts and maps in the backup be enlarged so they waul e easier to read. PZC/Approved 5 August 14, 2008 F:/BCC/AIJ Committees/PZC/2008Ag&Min/PZ Min.doc 3 g ATTACHMENT 7,

42 Surface Waters/Discharge FINAL CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS for Modified Mining Regulations from the April, May, July, and August 2008 PZC Workshops 1. Require the NPDES pollution prevention plan to be depicted on the site plan and approved by County Engineering prior to PZC review. A. At a minimum, the pollution prevention plan shall adequately address: Containment of run-off from stockpile, wash-down, and spray-down areas. Containment ofleaks and spills from vehicles and equipment (e.g. pumps, crushers). Wind erosion control measures used in exposed excavation and stockpile areas. Posting of setback and preservation areas on site. Applicable items from the county's list of mining operation best management practices (bmps). B. At the time of each annual mining permit renewal, the applicant shall agree to implement any new or updated bmps identified by county staff that should apply to the mining operation. 2. Require collection ofbaseline water quality data (specify parameters to be measured: e.g. levels of turbidity, chloride, other constituents) at project outfall points. *3. Require applicant to monitor discharge at outfall points to ensure no increase in levels of turbidity and other constituents at the outfall points. * A.Prior to renewal of annual mining permit, require applicant to submit monitoring report demonstrating no increase in turbidity or other constituents at outfall point. 4. Prior to issuance of a mining permit, require applicant to submit baseline data on the type, extent, and condition of vegetation and wetlands located on-site and within off-site areas abutting project site perimeters. 5. Require applicant to demonstrate that the project stormwater management and pollution prevention plans will not adversely affect the hydro-period of wetlands located on-site and within off-site areas abutting the project site perimeters. Groundwater/hydrology 6. Specifically require submission of a hydrology report prepared by a professional hydrologist, hydro geologist, geo-technical engineer, or geologist. 7. Establish specifications for the hydrology report, which at a minimum, shall include: Historical and baseline data on the hydrology of the site and surrounding area. Historical and baseline data on various groundwater characteristics, including wet season and dry season (minimum 1 year) monitoring well data collected prior to on-site mechanical de-watering and excavation below wet season groundwater level. *Monitoring or Compliance Requirement F:\Conununity Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\FINA~susrecommendations.rtf 1 ATTACHMENT 8

43 Cumulative impacts from existing, approved, and proposed mining projects and excavations in the vicinity. A "seismic profile" of the underground area beneath the project site. Hydrology model run outputs with summary and conclusion. Recommendations on mining design, operation, and monitoring that ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent wells, vegetation, surface waters, and wetlands. A. To account for potential non-mechanical de-watering effects, require submission of hydrology model run outputs that do not use "constant head" assumptions or parameters. Said outputs shall include a summary and conclusion. 8. Require submission of a mining operation site plan that depicts and implements the recommendations specified in the hydrology report and appropriate bmps. 9. Prior to issuance of a mining permit, require documentation verifying that the hydrology report has been submitted to the SJRWMD and DEP as information accompanying permit applications to those agencies. *10. Establish specifications for monitoring reports, including: report submittal frequency, receiving agencies, lake depths and updated excavation/lake depth profiles, groundwater monitoring well data, and assessment of changes in condition of adjacent vegetation and wetlands and comparison to baseline data. 11. As part of the site plan submittal, require testing for soils contamination in proposed excavation and stockpile areas, submittal of testing results with a summary and conclusions report, and submittal of a management plan for handling any contaminated soils identified. 12. Require assessment of location, depth, thickness, and extent of the confining layer (e.g. Hawthorne group "aquiclude") and demonstration that no excavation or proposed monitoring wells will contact or penetrate the confining layer. 13. Require identification of location, depth, characteristics, and condition of all existing wells on site. Also, require identification of all wells that contact or penetrate the confining layer. A. Require all such wells to be located on the mining site plan and properly grouted, plugged, and monumented prior to issuance of a mining permit. No excavation, stockpile, or on-site haul road areas shall be located within 30 feet of such a plugged well. * 14. Prior to issuance of a mining permit, require the applicant to submit to county staff sets of updated approved site plans that reflect all DEP and SJRWMD permit requirements. 15. Prohibit any excavation, stockpile, on-site haul road, or proposed ditch from being located closer than I 00 feet from an existing, historical and a naturally occurring on-site jurisdictional wetland or within 300 feet of such a wetland located off-site. *Monitoring or Compliance Requirement F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ST AN\Sand Mines\FINAA:.nlensusrecommendations.rtf 2 ATTACHMENT 8

44 A. Consider use of clay material "barrier walls" and other techniques to protect wetland area hydro-periods. B. Consider requiring protection of and setbacks from all on-site native upland vegetation areas meeting criteria. C. Consider requiring a 300' setback between all on-site activity areas (excavation, stockpile, on-site haul road) and any adjacent public conservation land or easement. 16. Prohibit any excavation or well drilling activity that contacts or penetrates the confining layer. 17. Prohibit extraction or on-site processing techniques that involve blasting or use of active chemical agents. 18. Consider establishing a significant setback between any excavation area and any existing or proposed public water supply well. Traffic & Nuisance 19. Require submission of a comprehensive dust control plan as part of mining site plan. At a minimum, such plans must address: treatment of stockpiles (including stockpile shape "doming"), on-site processing and loading areas, on-site and off-site haul routes; methods of treatment such as spraying and watering systems, other dust suppressants, devices and techniques that prevent tracking material off-site; use of mechanical dust recovery devices and techniques; and method and timing of re-vegetation in conjunction with excavation phases. A. Specifically limit stockpile heights to 25 feet. 20. Clarify existing 20 acre phase requirement to limit the extent of disturbed area (e.g acres) at any one time and address mining progression and site stabilization from phase to phase. A. Consider situating and sequencing phases in a manner that has the fewest impacts on adjacent properties early in the life of the mining operation. 21. Require submission of noise modeling data and analysis demonstrating compliance with Chapter 97 4 noise and nuisance requirements. 22. Specifically require pumps, crushers, and processing equipment to be placed behind berms, baffled (e.g. "turbo-style" mufflers), and/or placed below ground level. 23. Specify methods/alternative practices to prevent tracking material off-site and ensure that trucks leave mining sites with little or no loose material. 24. Establish more specific road surface protection requirements (e.g. driveway aprons, added road base material), and standards for maintenance and repair of unpaved and paved haul routes, factoring in cumulative impacts for shared haul routes. *Monitoring or Compliance Requirement 3 F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ST A N\Sand Mines\PINAL4Zsusrecommendations.rtf R

45 25. Require formal haul route maintenance agreements between the county and mining operator (multiple operators for shared haul routes). 26. Establish paving threshold for haul routes, factoring-in cumulative impacts for shared haul routes. A. As an alternative to paving, consider use of asphalt millings. 27. Specify haul route criteria, including definition (from mine to nearest paved major road intersections), adequacy of roads to handle haul traffic, and clarify criteria for using "nonresidential" local roads as haul routes. *28. Specify forfeiture of posted security for certain types or number of truck driver violations on haul routes. 29. Require traffic impact methodology meeting to include identification of any critical bridges and culverts to be impacted by project traffic. Grant Public Works specific authority to require applicants to evaluate project impacts on critical bridges and culverts, factoring-in cumulative impacts for shared haul routes, and identifying mitigation improvements. ' *30. Specifically require that the mining operator's annual report include documentation showing compliance with approved plans, conditions, and bmps. 31. Consider limiting total haul route dump truck traffic or otherwise ensuring "gaps" in truck traffic and preventing significant truck back-ups at haul route intersections. Compatibility & Notice 32. Restrict mines to areas designated AG-1, AG-2, and AG-3 only. 33. Re-classify mines from an administrative permit to a special exception use. 34. Require a special notice letter to owners of properties that lie within Y, mile of the proposed mining site or front on the primary haul route that will serve the proposed mine. Compliance & Enforcement 35. Increase formal code enforcement and Public Works compliance inspections (2 per year, one during wet season and one during dry season), funded by increased mining permit fees. 36. Modify security and forfeiture requirements to establish a clear forfeiture process, specifying penalties that increase in relation to the severity of the violation(s) and the number of repeat violations. Penalties to include bond forfeiture, stop-work periods, termination of mining permit, and non-renewal of mining permit. 37. Modify regulations to allow the county to impose mining permit conditions for enhanced traffic law enforcement funded by permit applicants and/or use of GPS monitoring. A. Consider hiring full time, FDOT certified deputy to provide continuous traffic law enforcement at all mining operations in the county. Funding to be provided by annual *Monitoring or Compliance Requirement F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\FINAL~susrecormnendations.rtf 4 ATTACHMENT 8

46 assessment of mmmg operations, including pro-rata assessment of "incidental to construction" hauling operations. 38. Review and update the formula for calculating compliance and restoration bond amounts. General Recommendations (not related to LDR modifications) A. That the BCC fund and obtain an updated county-wide hydrological study with seismic profiles, or comparable data, as recommended by the AAC. B. That the BCC install monitoring wells on conservation sites to establish baseline groundwater conditions, giving priority to sites and locations likely to be in the vicinity of future excavation and/or de-watering activities. *Monitoring or Compliance Requirement F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\FINAMsusrecommendations.rtf ATTAC! '~ rnt 5 R

47 Indian River County List of Mining "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) Dust/Sand & Pollution Control 1. Minimize stripping to those areas being excavated. 2. Utilize removed stripping to re-cover disturbed areas. 3. Minimize stripping in haul/on-site access road areas. 4. Stabilize with sand/marl mix. 5. Water frequently but avoid saturation/off-site tracking. 6. Keep loading areas graded and compacted. 7. Minimize truck movement- direct in/loaded/out. 8. Excavate directly onto truck when possible. Stockpile only when necessary. 9. When stockpiling, avoid sharp exposed vertical ridges and edges. Minimize height to 25'. 10. Use water on-site whenever needed to control dust. 11. Retain surface run-off onsite I re-direct to excavation areas. (Refer to Florida stormwater, erosion, and sedimentation control manual). 12. Locate stockpiles away from entrances, swales and recharge ditches and toward the center or rear ofthe site to avoid dust and sediment issues and erosion control problems near public roads and neighbors. 13. Water from dewatering operations, rather than well water, should be used for irrigation, dust control and truck bed washing. 14. Keep water from dewatering activities, stockpile run-off, and run-off from disturbed soil areas from cross contamination with rain water if there is to be any of-site discharges to County MS4 conveyances. Only rain water is a permitted stormwater discharge; water from de-watering activities is not a permitted stormwater discharge. NOISE 1. Construct 6-8' berm on perimeter - vegetate to stabilize. 2. Maintain equipment exhaust systems and insulated compartment covers as well as shields. ATTACHMENT 9. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ST AN\Sand Mines\CramAr5if comments. rtf 1

48 Indian River County List of Mining "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) 3. Utilize turbo style mufflers on stationary equipment such as pumps whenever possible. 4. Maintain vertical exhaust stack angles on equipment (e.g. dredges, pumps, loaders, etc. when possible). 5. Control truck and equipment travel speeds on site as well as off. 6. Berm around or lower pumping units as required. 7. No air horns. 8. No jake brakes on site. 9. No slamming tailgates. 10. Maintain required setbacks. 11. Maintain designated operating hours. 12. Maintain perimeter berms with a minimum 75% stabilization and keep free of all invasive plants. If a wash-out occurs to perimeter berm it should be repaired and stabilized within five ( 5) working days of the wash-out event. Haul Roads/Offsite 1. On paved roads, install paved entryways with sufficient radius to accommodate turning trucks at aprons. In daily operation check for trucks "cutting" comer and breaking edge of pavement. 2. Maintain storage for trucks to get off right-of-way. 3. On stabilized roadways, rock areas that encounter distress, such as driveway/road junction, stopping and starting areas as well as areas exhibiting distress such as rutting or potholes. 4. Grade haul road daily as required to eliminate potholing and rutting. 5. Inspect road daily to alleviate trouble spots: better to repair than rebuild. 6. Curtail activity when weather affect's road integrity. 7. Do not over water - water enough to curtail dust and maintain workable surface. 8. Grade wet surface only when workable. 9. Regulate trip frequency with loading cycles if needed to break -up truck traffic on public roads. AHACHMENT 9 4 F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\Crame4.6r comments. rtf 2

49 Indian River County List of Mining "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) 10. Sweep paved roads daily at entrance point and on primary haul route when needed. Prevent tracking of material off-site. 11. Clean off trucks before entering public roadway. 12. Tarp all loads before leaving site. 1. Maintain and respect posted speed limits. Trucks/Hauling 2. Monitor truck traffic approaching and leaving routes to facility daily. 3. No tracking of material off-site. 4. No parking on right-of-way. 5. Trash and paper to be disposed of in proper containers. Not on highway. 6. Operate with utmost regard for motoring public and pedestrians. 7. No loaded traffic leaving before 7:00am. 8. Complaints or actions deemed unsafe will result in vehicle or vehicles being banned from facility. No exceptions. Cited violations result in penalties against the mining operation. 9. Proper insurance and registration information to be on file. 10. Truck to be placarded with legible name, address and phone number. 11. Discourage use of jake brakes on routes within 1 mile of facility and residential areas. 12. Rules and speed limits should be posted at entry along with 24 hr. emergency contact number. 13. Trucks entering and exiting road signs should be posted at entry to public road ways or intersections. Coordinate with Traffic Engineering. General 1. Establish and maintain communication with surrounding property owners when possible. Establish good neighbor policy. Be receptive to complaints, and be prompt in resolving complaints. F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ST AN\Sand Mines\Crame4~f comments.rtf

50 Indian River County List of Mining "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) 2. Be aware of changing conditions and modify dust, erosion, and traffic controls accordingly. 3. Be aware of regulatory and governmental agency requirements and changes. 4. Adhere to monitoring plan (turbidity, water levels). 5. Display permits on-site. 6. Practice appropriate items from the "Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector's Manual", available at _ man.htm. 7. Stabilize site: if work has ceased or has been completed on a disturbed area ofthe site and no work is to start on that disturbed area for more then sixty (60) days then that disturbed area needs to be stabilized. 8. Post restricted areas: all wetlands, conservation land, preservation areas, and native uplands on the site should be posted and/or fenced and no work including stockpiling, dewatering or storage of equipment should be allowed within two hundred feet. 9. Prepare for spills: equipment work area and staging areas should have containment spill prevention measures and or nonporous surface with a spill kit in case of leaks or mechanical failure, and be located away from any waterbodies, swales, or recharge ditches. 10. Use appropriate fuel tanks: fuel tanks for equipment fueling should be double-lined tanks with a secondary containment around the tanks. 11. Handle trash: solid waste disposal should be made convenient for site operations and for the drivers entering or exiting the site. 12. Handle drums/containers: containers and 55 gallon drums should be labeled at all times including non-hazardous waste like vegetable oils for dewatering pumps. All drums need to have lids and be kept in one common area marked either Hazardous or Non Hazardous as per RCRA (Resource Conservation Recovery Act), and kept from being blown around the site. Also, a covered area or con ex box or other appropriate container with spill containment needs to be in place for solvents, anti freeze, used oil and used oil filters, used rags, aerosol cans and lead acid batteries. ATT~CKMENT 9 ' F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ST AN\Sand Mines\Crame4Br conunents.rtf 4

51 Page 1 of 1 Stan Boling From: Sent: To: Subject: Glenn_Schuessler@doh.state.fl.us Friday, October 03, :56 PM Stan Boling ing: TableiiSoiiCTLs Attachments: TableiiSoiiCTLs pdf Good Afternoon Stan, I have attached Table II in Florida Administrative Code (DEP) for soil contaminate cleanup target levels. This would be normally included in a Phase 2 environmental audit where site conditions appear to have potential pollution indicators. Our office can assist the county in evaluating sites where mining operations may be in areas of concern. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Charles Vogt. 10/3/ ATTACHMENT 1 0

52 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in the First Floor Conference Room "B1-501" of the County Administration Building "B", ih Street, Vera Beach, Florida. Present were Peter Robinson, Development Appointee; Todd Smith, Engineer Appointee; Stephen Moler, Engineer Appointee; Linda Schlitt Gonzales (arrived at 2:20 p.m.), Real Estate Broker Appointee; George Kulczycki, Forester, Biologist, Botanist, Horticulturalist, or Arborist Appointee; Warren Dill, Law Appointee; John Blum, Civil Engineer Appointee; Alan Schommer (arrived at 2:10 p.m.), General Contractor Appointee; Robert Gaskill, Architect Appointee (arrived at 2:03 p.m.); and Jon Day, Environmental Issues Appointee. Absent were Robert Poore, Alternate (excused), Robert Brackett, Finance and Business Appointee; Frank Johnson and Mark Scott, Alternates (unexcused). Also present were IRC staff: Stan Boling, Planning Director; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Will Collins, County Attorney; Jim Davis, Public Works Director; and Misty L. Horton, Commissioner Assistant, District 1. Others present: Jorge A. Latour and Victor Knight, Interested Parties. Please note: You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the agenda and the minutes on the IRC website - Please note listed at the end of each agenda item refers to time location of these items on the audio recorded of the meeting. Call To Order Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes of the May 15, 2008 Meeting ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Moler, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the May 15, 2008 minutes, as presented. (2:01 p.m.) PSAC/Unapproved 1 October 23, 2008 C:\Documents and Settingslstan\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK27\Min (5).doc 5 Q ATTACHMENT 11

53 B. Consideration of Amendments to Mining Regulations in LOR Chapters 934 and 971 Mr. Boling provided background information regarding the status of the moratorium on applications for new mines in Indian River County, explaining a state law mandates the moratorium can go no further than January 7, He referred to his memorandum dated October 8, 2008, with 11 attachments and PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file with the Commission Office. Mr. Boling referred to the 38 suggested recommendations for change made by the Planning & Zoning Commission. He highlighted County staff does not have expertise in some of the groundwater issues and water quality issues; relying upon St. Johns River Water Management District and other agencies. Mrs. Linda Gonzalez arrived at 2:20 p.m. Lengthy discussions ensued regarding haul route traffic, requirements, noise standards, compliance and enforcement. Mr. Victor Knight gave his opinion regarding the special exception use permitting and discussion followed. ON MOTION BY Mr. Schommer, SECONDED BY Mrs. Gonzalez, the members voted unanimously (1 0-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners consider the following changes/additions: Complete elimination of the 50 haul trips out per hour truck limit. Increase Formal Unresolved Violations from 2 to 5 within a one (1) year period before scheduling a penalty determination hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. No waiver of the appeal fee. Applicant given option for developers agreement to equitably share haul route paving costs. Public input required at Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. PSAC/Unapproved 3 October 23, 2008 C:\Documents and Settingslstan\Local Settings\T~~torary Internet Files\OLK27\Min (5).doc \J I ATTACHMENT. 11

54 Matters by Members None Matters by Staff ON MOTION BY Mr. Moler, SECONDED BY Mr. Robinson, the members voted unanimously (10-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners consider not penalizing (violating) the mine owner/operator for traffic violations of drivers not employed by the owner/operator. ON MOTION BY Mr. Robinson, SECONDED BY Mr. Schommer, the members voted unanimously (10-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed mmmg regulation LOR amendments revising the average annual daily trips (AADT) standard for the haul route paving threshold as follows: A1 = 500 AADT A2 = 1500 AADT A3 = no limitation (no paving required) ON MOTION BY Mrs. Gonzales, SECONDED BY Mr. Blum, the members voted unanimously (10-0) to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the ordinance with this Committee's recommendations contained in the motions above. Mr. Boling inquired about the 2:00 p.m. versus 12:15 p.m. meeting time and the consensus was for the meeting time to remain at 12:15 p.m. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m. PSAC/Unapproved 4 October 23, 2008 C:\Documents and Settings\stan\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK27\Min (5).doc 52 ",," ''". t.nr::nt.. :'"~ f r. c~ t..o W. nu.j. 11

55 Proposed Mining Regulation Amendments: Implementation of Planning & Zoning Commission 38 Recommendations PZC Recommendation Surface Waters/Discharge Addressed in Proposed Ordinance 1. Require pollution prevention plan/use of (1)(c): Pollution prevention plan bmps specifications established, use of bmps required. County bmp list created (attachment #9). 2. Require baseline data on water quality (1)(a) and (l)(a): Upfront coordination with SJRWMD required: water quality standards and regulation deferred to SJRWMD 3. Monitor discharge quality (2)(h): SJRWMD discharge and monitoring requirements noted on site plans. Site plan and pollution prevention plans enforced by county staff. 4. Require baseline data on surrounding (1)(n): Baseline observation data required. wetlands and vegetation Jurisdictional and county wetlands assessment requirements applied through site plan process. 5. Require applicant to demonstrate no adverse (3)( e): Demonstrating no adverse impacts impacts on wetland hydroperiods on plans required; maintaining hydroperiods required. Groundwater/hvdrolo!!V 6. Require hydrology report (1 )(d): Report required to be submitted and certified by state certified professional engineer or geologist (1 )(h) Authorizes county to charge applicants to pay cost of county-hired vrofessionals to review proiect hydrology reports. 7. Establish hydrology report specifications (1)(d): Detailed report specifications established. 8. Require that site plans reflect hydrology (1)(e): Requires written description of how report recommendations and bmps report recommendations and bmps are incorporated into plans (1 )(h) Requires plans to incorporate recommendations and bmps. 9. Require submittal of hydrology report to (1)(e): Requires date of report submittal to agencies SJRWMD noted on the site plan. 10. Establish monitoring report specifications (2)(d): Establishes monitoring data and data evaluation requirements for annual mining permit renewal requests. 11. Require testing for soils contamination (1)(f): Soils testing required if need is determined by Health Department (3)(g): Requires contaminated soils to be handled as directed by Health Department. 12. Require applicant to identify, characterize (1 )(d): Hydrology report required to underlying confining layer (e.g. Hawthorne identify general depth and thickness of confining group "aquiclude") layer, as well as depth of proposed excavation and any well-drilling activities. F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ST AN\Sand Mines\ Pz5Josedminingreqamend.doc 1

56 PZC Recommendation Groundwater/hvdrolo!!v ( cont'd) Addressed in Proposed Ordinance 13. Require applicant to identify and properly (1)(g): Requires on-site well depth, address on-site wells location, condition data on plans (3)(c)and (d): Require deep wells to be plugged or upgraded. Also requires setback of 30' from plugged or unplugged deep well to all on site activities. 14. Require site plans to reflect agency permit (1)(e): Requires description of how site and requirements permit plans satisfy agency requirements. 15. Establish special setbacks from wetlands, (3)(d): Establishes setbacks for deep wells, native uplands, public conservation areas wetlands, native uplands, conservation lands, city/county potable water surficial wells. 16. Prohibit contact/penetration of confining layer (3)(b): Requires excavation activity above confining laver. 17. Prohibit blasting, use of active chemicals for (3)(g): Prohibitions established. extraction 18. Establish special setback to public potable (3)(d): Setback established; matches public water supply wells water supply well setback in existing comprehensive plan policy. Traffic & Nuisance 19. Require dust control plan (1 )(c): Requires erosion control (1)(i): Requires a comprehensive dust and soillage control plan. 20. Clarify 20 acre phase requirement (3)(a): Retains 20 acre phase maximum, clarifies that active pit excavation area cannot exceed 20 acres, and clarifies existing allowance for transitioning between phases if security is oosted for both ohases. 21. Require noise modeling that demonstrates (1)(i): Requires noise modeling that compliance with Chapter 974 noise standards demonstrates compliance with Chapter 974 standards (4)(a): Requires satisfaction of Chapter 974 standards and allows for normal operation of vehicles (4)(a): Requires pumps, crushers, and processing equipment to be placed behind berms or below ground level, or equipped with mufflers or similar devices. 23. Specify practices that prevent tracking and (1 )(i): Requires dust and spillage control 22. Require noise-producing equipment to be baffled or placed behind benn/placed below ground level spillage plan to include methods that prevent tracking and spillage. 24. Establish road surface protections and (2): Retains County Engineer authority to maintenance standards F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ Pz54osedminingreqamend.doc require use of devices or improvements that protect pavement edges, curbs, entrances/exits (4)(e): Establishes improvement/maintenance standards for unpaved haul routes. Addresses vibration concerns. Standards were developed bv Public Works. ATTACHMENT 12 2

57 PZC Recommendation Addressed in Proposed Ordinance Traffic & Nuisance ( cont'd) 25. Require maintenance agreements on shared ( 4)(i): Requires improvement and routes maintenance plan that addresses shared responsibilities on shared haul routes. 26. Establish haul route paving thresholds (4)( ): Establishes haul route paving threshold based on amount of haul truck traffic; establishes paving standards. Threshold and standards were developed by Public Works. 27. Specify haul route criteria and evaluation of (4)(d): Establishes haul route haul route adequacy criteria/definition and provides authority for Public Works to determine the haul route (4)(g): Establishes special LOS evaluation methodology and LOS requirement for haul truck traffic on haul routes and at significantly impacted intersections. Criteria/definition and LOS standards/methodology were developed by Public Works. 28. Specify penalties for truck driver violations ( d): Establishes haul truck driver traffic citations on the haul route as violations against the mining operation served. Penalties for accumulated violations specified in Require up-front assessment of haul route bridge/culvert impacts (l)(b): Requires an early traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works (1 )(k): Requires evaluation of bridge/culvert impacts on haul route as directed by Public Works in the traffic impact meeting. 30. Require annual reports to document (4)(d): Requires applicant's annual reports compliance with site plan conditions and to verify compliance with site plan and all permits, bmps include monitoring data, and include monitoring summary and description of any instances of noncompliance. 31. Consider limiting total amount of truck (4)(g): Establishes LOS standard which traffic, and limiting frequency of truck traffic limits total peak truck traffic on haul routes and at to ensure "gaps" and prevent back-ups at haul significantly impacted intersections. route intersections (4)(h): Establishes peak frequency of trips for individual mining operations and cumulatively on shared haul routes. Frequency standards apply only to two-lane haul routes. Limitation standards were developed by Public Works. Compatibility & Notice 32. Restrict mining to AG-1, AG-2, and AG-3 97!.22(l)(b)6: Restricts mining to AG-1, AG-2, and AG-3 designated properties. 33. Re-classify mines from administrative permit Based on recent direction from the BCC, two versions to special exception use of the ordinance are proposed. ORD 1: 91!.06 and 97!.22 require special exception approval. ORD2: 97!.22 requires special administrative permit process that mandates special notice and public input at PZC. F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ Pz< risedminingreqamend.doc ATTACHMENT 12 3

58 PZC Recommendation Comoatibilitv & Notice (cont'd) Addressed in Proposed Ordinance 34. Require expanded notice: Y, mile from mining (1 )(b )7: Requires special notice in both site and along haul route versions of the ordinance. Comoliance & Enforcement 35. Increase formal site inspections and mining Addressed in attached fee resolution (see attachment permit fees #15). Not necessary to include site inspection fees in ordinance (1 )(h): Authorizes county to charge applicants for county-hired experts to review oroiect hydrology reports. 36. Establish clear security forfeiture process with (3)(a): Establishes process for forfeiting progressive penalties up to termination of road maintenance security. mining permit : Establishes detailed procedure for progressive penalties for violations. 37. Consider requiring enhanced traffic law (1 )(d): Authorizes BCC to assess mining enforcement and use of GPS monitoring operators the cost to the county to hire contract traffic law enforcement. Based on BCC direction, no GPS monitoring requirements are proposed. 38. Review and update, if needed, the formula for (5): Compliance security formula clarified compliance and restoration security amount to cover all on-site (cleared) activity areas. Restoration bond formula changed to be based on 125% of engineer's cost estimate, updated every 3 years during life of mine. Road maintenance security calculation remains unchanged (updated 2007). F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\Sand Mines\ Pz56osedminingreqamend.doc ATTACHMENT 12 4

59 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONCERNING AN AMENDMENT TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs); PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 911, ZONING, CHAPTER 934, EXCAVATION AND MINING, AND CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES; BY AMENDING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DISTRICTS SECTION , BY AMENDING SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE SECTION , BY AMENDING EXEMPTIONS SECTION , BY AMENDING SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MINES SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING STANDARDS SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING PERMIT REGULATIONS SECTION , BY AMENDING RESERVED SECTION , BY AMENDING USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS SECTION , BY AMENDING DURATION AND COMPLETION OF PERMITS SECTION , BY AMENDING RESERVED SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING PERMIT FEES SECTION , AND BY AMENDING THE SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA FOR EXTRACTIVE USES SECTION , AND BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION#!: Uses section ( 4) is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Division of a tract via a subdivision plat or affidavit of exemption approved in accordance with subdivision ordinance Chapter 913 requirements. Uses Agricultural General farming Dairy farming Livestock and poultry raising Stables (noncommercial) Stable (commercial) Sludge spreading Tree farms Kennel and animal boarding places Commercial Noncommercial Fruit and vegetable juice extractions and packing houses Small animal specialty farms Tenant dwelling Residential migrant housing facility Nursery and greenhouses Noncommercial District A-1 A-2 p A p p p A p A p A A s s p p A p p p A p A p A A s s p A-3 RFD RS-1 p - - A - - p - - p A A p - - A - - p - - A - - p p A A - - A - - s - - s p A A ]2Q11hle I Jnder!ine Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Sffike thfeligr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Cornmunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008--s/xcavation(long).RTF, ATTACHMENT 1 3 1

60 2008- Commercial (cultivation, wholesaling, and off-site landscaping services allowed; no retail sales allowed on-site) Agricultural businesses, excluding wholesaling and processing Agricultural industries Fish farms Agticultural research facilities Aquaculture Fruit spreading (subject to section (15)) Residential Accessory single-family dwelling unit Single-family dwelling Mobile homes Accessory housing for nightwatchman Guest cottage or servant's quarters Single-family docks and private observation/fishing I piers on vacant lots Bed and breakfast Institutional Child or adult care facilities Foster care facilities Cemeteries Places of worship Community Service Emergency services Educational centers, including primary and secondary schools Correctional institutions Cultural and civic facilities Governmental administrative building Colleges and universities Civic and social membership organizations (M-1 and M-2 areas only) Recreation Country clubs Golf courses Public parks and playgrounds Mai or sports and recreation areas and facilities Dude ranch Retreats and camps Commercial hunting and fishing lodges Off road vehicle tracts (commercial and noncommercial Commercial Fruit and vegetable stands Qouble ljnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Sa-ike J:Hre 1:1gH: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ ggxcavation(long).RTF p s s A A A p A p A A A A A A p s p p s p s s A A A p A p A A A A A A p s p p s s s s s s s s - s - A A A s s s s s A A A A s s s s s A p - - s - - s - - A - - A - - A A A p - - A A A p p p A - - A - - A A A A A A A - - A A s p p p s s s p s s p p p s s s s - - s s s s s s - s s A s s A s s A A A s - - s - - s s s s - - s - A ATTACHMENT 13

61 2008- Veterinary clinic or animal hospital A A A - - Driving ranges s s s - - Fruit, vegetable and nursery retail sales s s s - - Transportation and Utilities Ail]J_orts and airstrips s s s s - Communications towers (wireless facilities) NSl. NSl. NSl. Al. Al. Communications towers (non-wireless facilities) Amateur radio (accessory use) Less than 80 feet p p p p p 80 feet or taller (see (4) for special criteria) s s s s s Commercial Up to 70 feet: Camouflaged p p p p p Non-camouflaged p p p feet to 150 feet: Camouflaged A A A A A Monopole (minimum of2 users) A A A - - Not camouflaged and not monopole NS* NS* NS* - - Over 150 feet: All tower types (see (1) for special criteria) - s s - - Utility Public and private utilities, limited A A A s s Public and private utilities, heavy s s s s s Industrial Recycling center A A A - - Mining AS AS AS - - Very Heavy Industrial Demolition debris site s s s - - P - Permitted use A - Administrative permit use SECTION#2: S - Special exception use Short title and purpose section is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Excavation and Mining Ordinance." (2) The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners finds that in order to provide for the excavation. processing. production. and transportation of mined materials. to prevent public nuisances, safety hazards and damage to private and public property in the excavation of land, and ffi effier to protect the environment, including the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters, it is necessary to regulate excavation activities, including mining and hauling, in Indian River County. Double I Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StAke taraugfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~----5~xcavation(long).RTF 3 ATTACHMENT 13

62 2008- SECTION#3: Exemptions section , is hereby amended to read as follows: The following activities shall be exempted from the permitting requirements of this chapter, except as specifically indicated: (1) Agricultural use projects, including agricultural drainage canals, and irrigation work incidental to agricultural operations and stock watering ponds, provided that: (a) (b) (c) (d) The property is agriculturally zoned, or if the property is not so zoned, the agricultural use project is allowed in accordance with Chapter 904, Nonconformities, of the county land development eetie-regnlations; No excavated material is removed from the subject property; No excavation shall take place within fifty (50) feet of the property line; however, a ditch or canal may be excavated within fifty (50) feet of or along the property line, if written approval is obtained from affected property owners; and Wetlands are protected from the excavation activity, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (2) Earth moving in conjunction with the installation of a utility lines, wherein the excavation is to be backfilled. (3) Construction of state, federal, or local public roads and public works within the limits of public propertyo, right-of-way, or easement. (4) Graves. (5) Approved sanitary landfills. ( 6) Any activity regulated by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act and the Transmission Line Siting Act (Part II, Chapter 403, F.S.) to the extent that the provisions of this chapter are pre-emptied by said Acts. Maintenance activities undertaken by a public utility as defined in Section , Florida Statutes (1983) with regard to existing electrical power plants, their reservoirs and other related facilities. (7) Excavation incidental to development pefh!its projects. (a) Small-scale transfer of excess material Excavation incidental to any authorized Indian River County development order or permit, excluding permits for individual single-family homes and single-family ponds on individual lots or parcels. including approved site plans, subdivision plats, final development plans and/or building permits, shall be exempt if wfiereey Double { Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StFilte tafel:lgh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~----snxcavation(long).RTF 4 ATTACHMENT 13

63 2008- no more than five thousand (5,000) cubic yards of excavated materials are removed transferred from the project site premises. Prior to transfer of material from the project site. the project developer shall apply for and obtain a temporary use permit (Tl!P) from the community development director or his designee for such transfer of material. The authorized transfer of material from a development project site to adjacent right-of-way shall be considered the same as transfer of material within the boundaries of the development project site. Transfer of material off site shall occur within a continuous period ("window") of time not to exceed two (2) months and be limited to the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt excavation activities resulting in the creation of a waterbody from satisfying the littoral zone and water management standards of section 934.0~ (!1 of this chapter. (b) Medium-scale transfer of excess material For excavation incidental to authorized site plans, subdivisions, or planned developments, excavation material removal transferred from the premises project site may exceed five thousand (5,000) cubic yards, provided that: 1. The extraction process and hauling of excavated materials from the premises project site is completed within!! two (2) months continuous period of time beginning with the initial transfer of material off the development project site. of eommeneement of srojeet eonstruetion following the issuanee of The transfer of material off site shall not occur until a county land development permit 6f has been issued. a land development permit waiver has been granted. or release of an atmroved a site plan, has been apnroved and released. as aj3blieal3le and provided tl!a+-ssuch extraction and hauling is limited to occurring between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m. Monday through Friday; 2. Water depth within a created waterbody (as applicable) shall not exceed twelve (12) feet; 3. The provisions of section (5), are satisfied, pertaining to the posting of compliance and restoration bends security, are satisfied; 4. The provisions of section ~ are satisfied, pertaining to the hauling of excavated materials on public and private roads and the posting of road maintenance security, are satisfied; 5. The provisions of section 934.0~~ are satisfied, pertaining to littoral zone and water management standards for created waterbodiest, are satisfied; and 6. No dewatering occurs within one thousand (1,000) feet of any platted subdivision that is not serviced by public water; Double I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 8Erilte threuga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ xcavation(long).RTF 5 ATTACHMENT 13

64 The project developer applies for and obtains an administrative site plan approval for the transfer of material off-site. +.-(c) Large-scale transfer of excess material Incidental to construction mining activity on projects. including project phases. over three hundred fifty (350) acres in size may be permitted for a total of up to eighteen (18) continuous months from the date of commencement of off-site hauling of excess material sons-truction of the project's water management system, if each of the following conditions is satisfied~ as tleterminetl by the public works director and the colllillhnity development director: That!! the project developer applies for and obtains site plan approval for the transfer of material off-site. The site plan application is submitted for approval shall \\13.ich provideg sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with all applicable Chapter (7)(b) standards set forth above. That the quantity of excess fill produced by project construction and proposed to be hauled off-site is the result of complying with water management or enviromnental requirements, or recommendations from stormwater management improvements recommended by jurisdictional agencies. That the quantity of excess fill to be hauled off-site requires more than two (2) months of excavation and hauling activityo, An initial nermit allowing fohf (4) months of mining ana hauling activitt may be isshed by cehntv staff. fill initial Cl<teHsien ef sij< (6) mehtbs. a second CJ<tensien ef fohf (4) montbs. and a tbird ej<tehsieh ef fohr (4) months. may be gra!lted bv staff if and that the applicant has demonstrated cemnlianee witb cehntv mining re!ffilatiens for tbe initial neried(s) ef mining aetivitv and if the annlicant demonstrates that the requested timeframe (up to 18 continuous months) ejltension(s) is ~ necessary to ejwavate and haul the quantity of material involved. As a condition ef site plan approval fer an incidental te construction mining operation condt!eted under this subsection [ (7)(b)7.], tbe public.verks director may require public read repair work or funds er security te guarantee such v1erk, representing an amount of UJ3 to P.venty tbousand dollars ($20,000.00). The public works director may adjust tbis amount for inflation, witb 1996 as tbe base year. (8) Maintenance dredging of lakes or canals. No fill material generated by maintenance of ponds on single-family lots or parcels shall be transferred off site, (9) A pond or ponds on a single-family residential lot or parcel, provided that: (a) The total surface area of the pond or ponds is not greater than one-half( 112) acre in size or thirty-five (35) percent of the lot or parcel, whichever is more restrictive, except that the community development director or his designee may approve po,,hje I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike threugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve!opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~---s!cavation(long).RTF 6 ATTACHMENT 13

65 2008- a larger pond area if the applicant adequately demonstrates that a larger pond is necessary to satisfy the need for fill on site" (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) No excavation takes place within fifty (50) feet of the lot property line. Notwithstanding, in cases where the pond is necessary to meet stormwater management cut and fill balance requirements, said setback may be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of parcel width perpendicular to a given lot line, as applicable; The excavation does not disturb any existing wetland; Pond depth does not exceed twelve (12) feet; Side slopes are not greater than one foot vertical to four ( 4) feet horizontal; There.vill ee nno haulffig sf excavated material is hauled from the property, unless the excavation is conducted to satisfy cut and fill balance requirements for stormwater management purposes, as verified by the county engineer, provided removal of excavated material off-site is the minimum necessary to satisfy said requirements; It is demonstrated that the pond excavation is the minimum necessary to satisfy the intended use of fill on-site, as applicable; and A pond permit is obtained from the county planning division, including the posting of a five hundred dollar ($500.00) bend-security or other amount established by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners; said security to be returned upon verification by county staff that the above criteria have been satisfied. SECTION#4; Section is hereby replaced with wording to read as follows; Section Site Plan Submittal Requirements for Mines For mining operations not exempt under section , the following special site plan submittal requirements, in addition to Chapter 914 and Chapter 971 submittal requirements, shall be satisfied; (1) Submittal requirements. Mining site plan application requests shall include the following; (a) (b) Documentation that the applicant has met with the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) on project stormwater and groundwater issues. Documentation that a county site plan pre-application conference has been conducted in accordance with Chapter 914 requirements and that a traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering has been conducted. *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) Oopb!e I Jnder.l.iMo Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance H-ille Hl.Feugfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ xcavation(Jong).RTF 7 ATTACHMENT 13

66 2008- *(c) A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CNPDES) pollution prevention plan. Such pollution prevention plan shall adequately address: Containment of run-off from stockpile, wash-down, and truck spray-down areas. Containment of leaks and spills from vehicles and equipment (e.g. pumps, crushers). Wind erosion control measures used in exposed excavation and stockpile areas. Posting of setbacks and preservation areas on site. Applicable items from the county's list of mmmg operation best management practices (bmps); said list is maintained by and available from the county planning department. *(d) A hydrology report prepared and certified by a state certified professional engineer or geologist that, at a minimum, includes: Historical and baseline data on the hydrology of the site and surrounding ~ Historical and baseline data on various groundwater characteristics, including wet season and dry season (minimum 1 year) monitoring well data collected prior to on-site mechanical de-watering and excavation below wet season groundwater level. Submittal of such wet season and dry season monitoring well data may be delayed until issuance of the first mining permit renewal or within 1 year of the issuance of the initial mining permit. Estimated depth, thickness, and extent of the confining layer (e.g. Hawthorne group) in the general area of the project site, and maximum depth of proposed project excavation and well drilling activities. Evaluation of the cumulative groundwater impacts on adjacent wells, wetlands, and vegetation from mining or excavation operations that exist or are proposed in the vicinity of the subject mining proposal. Hydrology model run outputs for the mining operation with assumptions, summary, and conclusion. In addition, model run outputs shall be submitted that predict the post-reclamation groundwater and lake levels and shall include assumptions, summary, and conclusion. Recommendations from the professional engineer or geologist to the site plan project engineer on mining design, operation, and monitoring that ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent wells, vegetation, surface waters, and wetlands. 1. Along with the hydrology report, the applicant shall submit a $10, deposit to be used by the county to hire professional services to review and comment on the hydrology report. Once professional serves are paid, the county shall return any funds remaining on deposit to the applicant. *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Double Underline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance trike trrel:lgr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-~~xcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 8

67 2008- *(e) Written description of how the site plan incorporates the design recommendations contained in the hydrology report and applicable items from the county's list of mining best management practices (bmps). 1. A description, noted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans, stating how the proposed mining operation will satisfy state and federal groundwater impact regulations and standards. 2. The date, noted on the site plan, a copy of the hydrology report was sent to the SJRWMD. *(f) (g) (h) *(i) Soils test data, if any, required by the Department of Health (DOH) as a result of the county site plan pre-application conference process. The DOH may require soils testing if it determines that site conditions appear to have pollution indicators for soil contaminants regulated by Florida Administrative Code. The location, depth, characteristics, and condition of all existing wells on site. The distance from the excavation area(s) to the nearest existing or proposed city or county surficial aquifer public water supply well. A comprehensive dust and spillage control plan that, at a minimum, addresses the following: treatment of stockpiles (including stockpile shape "doming"), on-site processing areas and loading areas, control of dust from truck operations on site and on the project haul route; methods of treatment, such as spraying and watering systems, other dust suppressants, devices and techniques, that prevent or minimize tracking material off-site; use of mechanical dust recovery devices and techniques; method and timing of re-vegetation in conjunction with excavation phases; method of preventing or minimizing, and cleaning up, material spillage along the haul route; and applicable items from the county's list of mining operation bmps. *(j) *(k) *(I) Noise modeling data and analysis demonstrating compliance with Chapter 974 noise and nuisance requirements. Evaluation of project impacts on haul route roads and haul route bridges and culverts if Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering requires such an evaluation as a result of the traffic impact methodology meeting. Written and graphic information displayed on the site plan demonstrating compliance with section requirements. *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Doqble I lnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike tiueuga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ &ffxcavation(long).RTF 9 ATTACHMENT 1 3

68 2008- *(m) An engineer's itemized estimate of the cost to restore the site in accordance with Chapter 934 requirements. Such estimate shall include a calculation of 125% of the estimated cost. *(n) Description and photo-documentation of the type and condition of vegetation on-site and description of the observable type and condition of vegetation on adjacent sites. *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). SECTION#5: Re-number old Section to take the place of reserved section and read as follows: Seetion Reserved. Section 934.0~Q.. Water management Mining standards. (1) Procedural Sequence Mining operations are subject to the following procedural sequence: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Discussion or "pre-application" meeting with SJRWMD. Traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering. Site plan pre-application conference. Formal site plan submittal. Initial TRC review. (Q Final TRC review. (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (I) Planning & Zoning Commission review and recommendation. Board of County Commissioners review and approval. Initial annual mining permit. "Pre-construction"/site work meeting with staff. Annual mining permit renewal. Site restoration and final inspection/close-out. Double I Jnderljne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike tafshgh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ soxcavation(!ong).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 10

69 2008- (2) Littoral Zone and Water Management On project sites exceeding ten (1 0) acres in area, any excavation or mmmg activity in the unincorporated county which results in the creation or expansion of a waterbody (as defined in Chapter 901) shall be subject to the following standards, except as specifically exempted in Section of this chapter. The requirements of this section shall not apply to small lot single-family subdivisions, which, as designated in Seetiea (9), are elcpressly intended to provide workforce or affordable housing. fbi!!} A littoral zone(s) shall be established as part of the created waterbody. A design and management plan must be submitted which shall: WL Include a topographic map of the proposed littoral zone(s) showing the control elevation contour and the minus two-and-one-half-foot control water elevation contour, and include a cross-sectional view of the littoral zone( s) planting design, showing the required slopes from the top of the bank to a depth of two and one-half (2 1/2) feet below the control water elevation; (&)2. Specify how vegetation is to be established, including the extent, method, type and timing of any planting provided; ( 13. Provide a description of any water management procedures to be followed in order to ensure the continued viability and health of the littoral zones; fd)4. Include a plan view which documents the location and extent of the littoral zones, including the percentage of the waterbody surface area (at control elevation) covered by vegetated littoral zones. ~.C!!l The established littoral zone(s) shall consist of native vegetation, and shall be maintained permanently as part of the waterbody. All landscaping, littoral zone revegetation plans and lake management plans shall comply with St. John River Water Management District rules. WJ 1 Littoral zone design requirements: fail. (&)2. The slope for the planted littoral zone shall be no steeper than one (1) foot vertical to ten (10) feet horizontal to a distance of five (5) feet waterward of the designated planted littoral zone area. Excluding the planted littoral zones, slopes shall not exceed one (I) foot vertical to four ( 4) feet horizontal. Certified drawings of the littoral zone slopes must be sent to the planning division within thirty (30) days of slope construction. Littoral zones must be shall comprise at least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area, or twenty-one (21) square feet per lineal foot of shoreline, whichever is less. Littoral zones must be located between one (I) foot above ordinary water level (OWL) and two (2) feet below OWL, as determined by the applicant's engineer or designee unless otherwise approved by the community development director or his designee. Qcphle I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Suil:e thre1:1gr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ o?xcavation(long).RTF II ATTACHMENT 13

70 2008- fe13. The littoral zone IffilSt shall be provided with a minimum of six (6) inches of sand topsoil mix, unless otherwise approved, and planted with at least five ( 5) species at an average spacing of two (2) feet on center. Inter-plant spacing will vary with species, and must be depicted on the littoral zone vegetation plan. E614. A minimum of one tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet of littoral zone coverage. The proposed trees must be a minimum of five ( 5) feet in height at time of planting (measured at planting depth) and consist of native, freshwater wetland varieties (e.g. red bay, red maple, bald cypress, loblolly bay). Eej5. Appropriate species for littoral zone plantings, including trees, are listed in Chapter 926, Appendix E. f'b@ Conformance: Eajl. fbj2. fe13. The planted littoral zone IffilSt shall meet eighty (80) percent coverage within six (6) months, and be less than five (5) percent exotic or invasive non-native plant species after the first year. Monitoring reports are required, and must be submitted to staff at time zero (0), ninety (90) days, six (6) months, and one (!) year after planting. The applicant must notify the planning division forty-eight ( 48) hours prior to completion oflittoral zone planting. For subdivision or affidavit of exemption projects, b!ittoral planting zones are-te shall be preserved and maintained as a common improvement, and shall be identified graphically and in writing en in a restrictive covenant in a form acceptable to the county attorney's office. The plat, or affidavit of exemption document shall if applicable, mt~st reference the restrictive covenant. Tfie ellact labgt~age as seen in the littoral Zene Restrictfve Cevenant mt~st ae feliewed. The restrictive covenant and plat, if applicable, mt~st shall be reviewed by the planning division and county attorney's office prior to recording. A cepy ef tfie recerded restrictive cevenant ffillst ae previded te staff prier te appreval ef tfie land de>:e!opment permit. Planting of the littoral zones IffilSt shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion or the first certification of occupancy for any lot adjacent to or abutting the lake, whichever occurs first. E614. All excavations must comply with "Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry." Eej5. Planted littoral zones must be maintained in perpetuity in compliance with these planting requirements, and with "Best Management Practices." (5) There will ae no significant adverse eff site impact en gretmdwater quality er greundwater levels. In tfie event ef dewatering asseciated witfi ejlcavatiens (ineluding mining), tfie applicant shall present evidence tfiat no salt v1ater intrlision and/er reooctien in quality or Double I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 8tril:e lj:irehgr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~-ugxcavation(long).RTF 12 ATTACHMENT 13

71 2008- quantity sf well water availaele te preperties.viteiaeae fetllih ( 1/4) mile eftfie permitted aetivity.vill eeeur. Will The water management system, including swales and interconnected wetlands and lakes, must be specifically designed to inhibit siltation and eutrophication processes. To ensure this, the applicant must submit an environmental management and lake monitoring plan, specifying the method for monitoring the system and corrective actions should eutrophication and/or siltation occur. (+)ffi A fifteen-foot-wide access maintenance easement shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) feet of shoreline. This easement shall extend from below control elevation of the lake to a public or private road right-of-wayo, and shall be labeled and depicted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans. flb.{g} The littoral zone will be considered as fully creditable towards the 2: I mitigation ratio for freshwater emergent wetlands; (ref. Chapter 928, Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection). (h) Off-site discharge shall meet all applicable state and federal water quality standards, including standards for turbidity and other regulated constituents and parameters. The method for testing, collecting, and reporting baseline and monitoring data to the SJRWMD shall be noted, and testing/monitoring locations shall be depicted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans. (3) Groundwater and Environmental Protection (a) (b) (c) (d) All applicable state and federal groundwater and groundwater impact regulations shall be satisfied. Excavation activity shall occur only above the confining layer. All existing or proposed on-site wells that penetrate the confining layer shall either be grouted and plugged in accordance with SJRWMD standards or brought up to current SJRWMD standards for such wells. Such wells shall be properly plugged or upgraded and properly monumented and flagged prior to issuance of the initial mining permit. The following setbacks shall be maintained from excavation areas below the wet season groundwater level (excludes temporary re-charge ditches and similar temporary excavations used for water re-charge): I. 30 feet to any plugged or unplugged well that penetrates the confining layer, feet to preserved on-site jurisdictional wetlands or native uplands, feet to known off-site jurisdictional wetlands or native uplands, feet to adjacent public conservation lands or conservation easements, 5. 1,000 feet to the nearest existing or proposed city or county public water supply well that uses the surficial aquifer (the aquifer that lies above the confining layer) as a source of potable water. Double 1/nderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Stril:s tarel:lg\:1: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ ogxcavation(long}.RTF 13 ATTACHMENT 13

72 2008- (e) CO (g) The mmmg operation shall not adversely affect the hydro-period of preserved jurisdictional wetlands on site or known off-site jurisdictional wetlands. The project site plan, stormwater management plans, and pollution prevention plans shall demonstrate how the hydro-period of on-site and known off-site jurisdictional wetlands will be maintained to the satisfaction of SJRWMD. Extraction and on-site processing techniques that involve blasting or use of active chemical agents are prohibited. This prohibition is based on a finding that such techniques are not necessary to extract or process recoverable materials known to exist within Indian River County, and is intended to avoid potential adverse groundwater impacts as well as noise and vibration nuisances. Any contaminated soils identified on site shall be handled in accordance with applicable state and federal standards, as directed by the Department of Health (DOH). (h) Project site plans and permit plans shall incorporate all appropriate recommendations and best management practices Chmps) contained or identified within the project hydrology report. The county is authorized to engage professional services to review project hydrology reports and charge applicants the cost of such services. 1. Upon receipt of a project hydrology report, the county has 60 days to provide the applicant comments on the hydrology report. Prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the applicant shall respond to each comment in writing. (4) Traffic and Nuisance Mitigation (a) The noise and nuisance requirements of Chapter 974 shall be satisfied. Normal operation of vehicles shall be deemed to meet Chapter 974 requirements. 1. Pumps, crushers, and processing equipment (including portable equipment but not including vehicles) used on site shall be placed behind berms, located below surrounding ground level, or equipped with mufflers (e.g. "turbo-style" mufflers) or similar devices that significantly reduce the level of emitted noise. (b) (c) Dust/particulates and material spillage shall be controlled in accordance with the approved project comprehensive dust and spillage control plan. Material stockpiles shall not exceed a height of 25 feet above the grade of the adjacent project site perimeter. (d) For ourooses of these mmmg regulations, "haul route" shall mean the roadway segment(s) traveled by haul truck traffic from the mining site to the nearest paved major road intersection(s). The project haul route(s) shall be determined by the Public Works director or his designee as a result of the traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering. Qouhle I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike tlueb:ga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008--roxcavation(long).RTF 14 ATTACHMENT 13

73 2008- (e) Unpaved haul routes shall be improved and maintained to the following standards: 1. Minimum gradable base of twelve (12) inches of suitable road base material (material that can meet the compaction standard below) shall be provided for the duration of the mining project. The mining operator(s) shall add gradable base material as directed by the Public Works Director or his designee to meet this gradable base material standard. 2. Base material shall be suitably compacted to meet LBR (load bearing ratio) 40 standards. 3. The minimum gradable haul route width shall be 24 feet. (f) Haul routes or haul route segments shall be paved if the anticipated project haul truck traffic from the proposed mine and approved mines sharing the same haul route segment(s) exceed an average of 500 truck trip ends per day. (Truck trip ends are one-directional. For example, one truck entering the mine = 1 trip end; the same truck leaving the mine = a 2"d trip end.) Applicants may enter into a developers agreement to equitably share or recoup paving costs. 1. Paved haul routes shall meet the following specifications: a. Minimum pavement width shall be 24 feet. b. Pavement thickness base and sub-base depths shall meet county thoroughfare and truck route specifications, including ESAL (equivalent single axle loads) and pavement strength co-efficients. (g) (h) The county's adopted level of service (LOS) for the project haul route and intersections significantly impacted by project truck traffic shall be evaluated using passenger car equivalents (PCE's) for anticipated haul truck traffic based on Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) standards for PCEs. (For example, a PCE of 2.3 passenger cars per haul truck would be used to evaluate the LOS for the project haul route and intersections impacted by the project.) Such evaluation shall nse average daily haul truck traffic plus a 15% (fifteen percent) peaking factor. Where a haul route segment(s) is shared by more than one mining operation, haul truck traffic from all the mining operations shall be used in the LOS evaluation. To provide gaps in haul truck traffic on haul routes and prevent significant haul truck back-ups at haul route/major road intersections, the following truck frequency standards shall be satisfied: 1. A mining operator shall limit the frequency of haul truck trips to and from his mining operation on two-lane roads to no more than 120 trip ends per hour, with trips ends as defined in Section 4(f) above. This frequency standard may be exceeded for delivery of materials to special or large projects if the operator first obtains approval from the Public Works Director of a maintenance of traffic plan. Such plan shall include a coordinated hauling schedule if a shared haul route is used and method of maintaining acceptable traffic flow to provide "gaps" for non-project traffic along the haul route. Said plan may Double ljnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike trre1:1gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-~1Excavation(long).RTF 15 ATTACHMENT 13

74 2008- also require additional improvements to or security for maintaining the haul route, and may require coordination with other mining operators. 2. Along a two-lane haul route segment, cumulative haul truck trips shall not exceed 240 trip ends per hour, with trip ends as defined in Section 4(f) above. 3. To aid the county in monitoring haul truck trip frequency, applicants shall provide haul truck log information to the Public Works Director or his designee, upon request. (i) Where one or more haul route sel!ments are shared by more than one mmmg operation, the operators of the affected mines shall obtain Public Works approval of a haul route improvement and maintenance plan that addresses shared responsibilities and use of posted security in the event that one or more parties fail to perform its fairshare maintenance. SECTION#6 Mining permit regulations section is hereby amended to read as follows: Section Mining permit and other regulations (I) Applicability. A An initial county mmmg permit shall be required fef prior to commencement of land-clearing, excavation, or hauling associated with any mining activity (as defined in Chapter 90 I) in the unincorporated county, except as exempted in section of this chapter. In addition, a mining permit must be renewed annually to keep the mining operation active and in compliance with these mining regulations. lilly request fer a mining permit shall be esnsidered an applieatisn fer site plan apprsval, and tbe prseeclhre set fertb in the emmty land develspment esde fer sueh applieatisns shall be fellswed. The provisions of this section shall be esnsidered as esnditisns!!p.p!v to the mining site plan and administrative pennit special exception use request. sr speeial elleeptisn use as allswed and speeified in Chapter 971, Speeifie Land Use Criteria (2) Application procedures. Mining permit applications and requests for annual mmmg permit approval shall be rnade submitted to the community development department, in aeesrdanee witb site plan submittal reqt~irements set fertb in the eslillty land develspment esde. The site plan applieatien must alse demenstrate tbat, in additisn ts esnfermanee witb all eslillty eedes, the esnditisns sf tbe mining permit are met as speeified herein. Speeified submittal reql±irements shall inelude: and shall be accompanied by an approved site plan unless an approved site plan is already on file with the department. The project site plan shall meet all applicable site plan, Chapter 934, and Chapter 971 requirements, including the following special requirements: (a) A mining project site plan, including: 1. Plan view and cross-sections of mining area; 2. Amount of fill to be removed; 3. Timetable of mining activity; Double I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance.Strike tareliga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~_:r2xcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 16

75 Method of mining; 5. Hours of operation; and 6. Safety/security plan for the site. (b) A restoration plan, including: 1. A description of the eventual future use of the site; aru:l 2. Final grades of the sitei: 3. Littoral zone grading and planting plan in accordance with the littoral zone requirements ofthese mining regulations; and 4. Groundcover treatment for the entire site, including permanent erosion control and stormwater management measures. (3) Conditions of the mining permit. (a) (b) +he Generally, the maximum project-site development phase for mffiffig excavation pit activities shall not exceed twenty (20) acres per phase. During transition from one phase to the next, two phases may be active concurrently if security is posted for both phases in accordance with these mining regulations. No portion of a pit (lake) shall be required to be fully restored in accordance with the project's restoration plan until excavation of the entire pit (lake) has ceased. No mining excavation shall occur within one hundred fifty (!50) feet of a projected rightof-way line of any existing or proposed public road, nor within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer perimeter of the project property. Where a mining operation consists only of the removal of a mound and does not consist of lowering the elevation of ground below the neighboring property, an exception of the one hundred fifty (150) feet setback may be permitted at the time of site plan approval. In addition, the applicant shall satisfy the following: 1. A three-hundred-foot setback from adjacent occupied structures (structures existing as of the date of site plan application for the mining project) to mining pits, on-site haul roads, and material stockpile areas. (c) (d) All mining sites that exceed ten (10) acres in area shall be subject to the provisions of section , water management standards, of this chapter. Projects creating waterbodies must also provide a safety/security plan for the mining operation phase, including, but not limited to, fences, access, control, and other security methods. If the project site is of a size that falls below St. Johns River Water Management District permitting thresholds and is located (in whole or part) on the Atlantic coastal sand ridge, no excavation governed by a mining permit shall result in an average elevation of less than twenty-five (25) feet mean sea level (MSL) for that portion of the project site located on the sand ridge. Mining project sites that are large enough to fall within Saint Johns River Double { fnder\ine Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance.Stril:e tare~gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~--73Excavation(long).RTF 17 ATTACHMENT 13

76 2008- Water Management District (SJR WMD) permitting requirements shall conform to SJRWMD permitting requirements concerning depth of mining and all other applicable SJRWMD permitting requirements. (e) (f) If the project site is adjacent to a residential district or to an agriculturally-zoned parcel of ten (I 0) acres or less, the perimeter of the site adjacent to such an area shall include a fiftyfoot wide bufferyard and a type "A" buffer or its equivalent along said site boundary. No crusher, mixing plant, bin, tank, or structure directly involved in the production process shall be located less thanl six lruneireei (600) fuet feet to any adjacent property zoned residential, or feet or 25% of the project site width, whichever is less, to any adjacent property not zoned residential. In no case shall the setback to property not zoned residential be less than 250 feet. from any aajaeent resiaentially zoned property,: and two ffirndred fifty (250) fuet from all other aajaeent nomesidentially zoned property. (g) Hard reek mining activities shall enst~re that measmes are taken to control dhst. No explosives or active chemical agents shall be used to extract or process materials on site. (h) The Indian R~ver County Planning ana Zoning CoHlfHission shall, HfJOn approval of the mining site plan, oreier isshanee of an operating permit to the owner of the land HHder his signature, and sueh perroit shall be isst~eei within ten ( 10) days after the deterroination of eoffij'llianee by the eohifllission. The community development department shall issue a mining permit upon site plan and special exception use approval, and a determination that all site plan release and applicable Chapter 934 requirements are satisfied for permit issuance. (i) Provisions for eontint~ing operation. Nothing herein shall be construed as a requirement that an operator of an existing sand mine shall cease operations until a mining site plan has been approved, provided a mining site plan has been previously approved and maintained. (j) Specific mining activity timeframes, from the date of initial mining permit issuance, are established based upon the estimated quantity of material to be removed. Excavation, hauling, or other mining activities occurring beyond these timeframes, (along with any approved extension requests) are prohibited: w.l. Less than 10,000 cubic vards 1 vear 10, ,999 cubic yards 2 years I 00, ,000 cubic vards 5 vears Over 500,000 cubic vards 10 vears These timeframes may be extended by the board of county commissioners upon an applicant's request made prior to the normal timeframe expiration. The board may grant an extension if it determines that the mining operation has been inactive for a Double 1/nderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StAke tlueugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\1008\2008-~~xcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 18

77 2008- period of time due to market conditions such as an economic recession. The board shall not extend the initial timeframe by a period of time greater than the determined period of inactivity. (k) The mining site shall be restored in accordance with the approved restoration plan. Within five (5) months of the end of the approved timeframe (including any extension), the operator shall submit to the county a written notice stating that the mine is inactive and has been restored. Such notice shall be accompanied by two (2) signed and sealed as-built surveys of the site demonstrating substantial conformance with the approved project restoration plan. Sueh restsratisn shall he esmpletecl, ana Restoration work shall then be inspected for compliance with the approved project restoration plan ana apprsvecl by county staff within six (6) months of the end of the approved timeframe (including any extension) for the mining operation. None of the security posted with the county in accordance with these mining regulations shall be returned unless and until the requirements of this sub-section ("(k)") are satisfied. ( 4) Operating conditions of mining. (a) (b) (c) Mining operations lscatecl in an agrieultural zsning clistriet, where the prejeet site is located west of 1-95 and not adjacent to neither a residential district nor ao agriculturallyzoned parcel of ten (1 0) acres or less, shall not be limited to specific hours of operation unless a determination is made by the planning aod zoning commission concerning the need to limit hours of operation due to the anticipated impact of the mining operation on surrounding properties.,\cpplieaffis sperating If a project site or any portion of a project's primary haul route is located east of 1-95, or if any portion of a project site is located adjacent to!! residential zoning districts or agriculturally-zoned parcels of ten (10) acres or less, then the mine shall be permitted ts sperate limited to operation between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. on weekdays; hauling off-site shall not occur after 5:00 p.m. on any day. Operation other than 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. may be permitted by the board of county commissioners if the board determines that the impact of the mining operation on surrounding properties will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood, contrary to county noise and vibration control regulations. The land surface shall be restored to a condition which is in complete compliaoce with the site plan for reclamation and rehabilitation of the area. The mining excavation pit shall not be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the projected right-of-way line of any existing or proposed public road nor within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer perimeter of the land area. Where a mining operation consists only of the removal of a mound aod does not consist of lowering the elevation of ground below the neighboring property, an exception to the one-hundred-fifty (150) foot outer perimeter setback may be permitted at the time of the site plao approval. All slopes and banks shall be sloped at a ratio of not steeper than three (3) feet horizontal to one foot vertical, graded, grassed and stabilized. Permanent project site boundary comers and the 150 foot project perimeter setback line shall be marked with intermediate stakes at a minimum interval of three hundred (300) feet, and all limits sf exeavatisn shall he staked, marked and maintained with visible flags in the field, in accordaoce with the approved project site plans fer the permit. Double 1 Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 8kihe tare1:1:gr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ Bxcavation(long).RTF 19 ATTACHMENT 13

78 2008- (d) Anmml progress report. The Between August 1" and October 1 ' 1 of each year, the operator holding a valid mining permit shall file, on or before submit to the community development department the following: Oeteller I of eaeh year, _ _a written request to renew the annual mining permit, a written statement report to the eomh!ubity development department identifying the current operator and engineer of record, a calculation of the labels land area mined and reclaimed for during the preceding ealendar year, abel identifying labels a calculation of the land area expected to be mined, and lands a calculation of the land area planned for reclamation during the eurrent coming yearo, The report shall also verify verification that all county and jurisdictional agency permits are valid and that the operation is in compliance with all conditions of other permitting authorities site plan approval, and shall note _ _the expiration dates for all jurisdictional agency permits, a copy of all monitoring reports and monitoring data provided to jurisdictional agencies during the preceding year, and a summary indicating the status of compliance with monitored thresholds and any instances of non-compliance during the preceding year. 1. No annual mining permit shall be renewed unless and until the mining site is deemed to be in compliance with the approved project site plan. Failure to file the required annual progress report by October 1 '\ or obtain renewal of the permit by November 1 '\ shall be grounds for suspension of the operating permit mining operation; however, an extension of time for filing or obtaining the permit renewal may be granted by the planning and zoning eohl.fflission community development director or his designee upon request and for reasonable cause. ( 5) Re(j:Hirement of!jonds Posted securitv (a) Intent. Compliance and restoration OOflfls security shall be posted to ensure that the site is developed, operated, and restored in conformance with the approved mining site plan and restoration plan. The compliance bend security ean may be assessed forfeited as a penalty only to violations of site plan approval that are ehargeallle to the mining permit holder, and those nnder his St!fJervision, direetion, or eontrol for violations as provided in section of these mining regulations. The restoration bend security is to provide funds to restore guarantee that the site is restored in compliance with the approved restoration plan and may be forfeited as provided in section of these mining regulations. (b) Amount. The compliance bend security shall be posted in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per acre of the project site with a minilffilm of five thousand dollars ($ ) area upon which mining activities are conducted and authorized via the mining permit. For purposes of the compliance security calculation, such areas shall include any cleared or stabilized area used or permitted to be used for access, staging, hauling, excavation, stockpiling, re-charging, processing, parking, or storage. The Qonble { Jnderhne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike ti'if91:1gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ raxcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 20

79 2008- m1mmum amount of the compliance security shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The restoration bend security shall be posted in the an amount sf sue thsusard dsllars ($1,000.00) per aere sf exeavatisu with a miuim\ffil sf the thsusard dsllars ($ ) equal to 125% of the project engineer's itemized cost estimate to restore the site, approved by the Public Works director or his designee. Said estimate shall be based on the cost to restore the mining activity site area in accordance with the approved restoration plan. The cost estimate and resulting required security amount shall be updated and revised every 3 years during the life of the mining operation. The cost estimate must be approved by the Public Works director or his designee. The minimum amount of the restoration security shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). (c) Form: The security shall be provided in a form consistent with the county's standards for subdivision improvements maintenance security as provided in (2). fej@ Phasing. When one phase of twenty (20) acres or less is completed and restored m conformance with the suamitted site p!ar fur reclamatisu ard rehaeilitatisu, ard iu esufuflflaree with this ehapter, approved restoration plan, the compliance and restoration bends security may be transferred to the next phase under the approved site plan. Mere thar sue phase at a time No more than two phases may be mined concurrently; however, each phase shall be fully bsuded covered by posted security, as required by this chapter. tdj~ (e) Renewal. Within thirty (30) days preceding bend security expiration, a bend a mining operator shall renew the posted security renewal or provide new bend security, in a form and amount approved by the community development director and county attorney, must be en file iu the esmlfiurity db'relspmeut department. In the event that timely security renewal does not occur, the county is authorized to have the security forfeited. This process shall be continued through the completion of eaeh the mining operation. Ferfeiture. Up en a fiudiug sf neuesmpliauee vrith this ehapter sr the apprsved mining site p!ar sr reelamatisu site p!ar; sr failure ts reuevf bends within thirty (30) days sf expiratisu, the esmmurity develspmeut direetsr shall ustif) the permit hslder iu writing sf the ueues!h]'jiiaree ard the peudiug furfeiture sf the es!h]'jiiaree aud/er restsratisu bead. This ustiee shall alss include uetiee sf the appeal precess. 1. The es!h]'jliaree bend shall be furfeited fer vislatiug the esuditisus sf site plan ap]'jhjval iucludiug, but ust limited ts, uuappreved eff site diseharge ef water, failure ts esufiue hauling ts apprsved hauliug rsates, failure ts maihtaiu hauliug reate per the apprsved maiuteuanee plan, speratiug in vislatisu sf the safety!security plan, excavating withiu required setbacks, miuiug sf additisual phases prier te restsratisu sf the pre';ieus phase, and activity ust esusisteut with permits issued by ether jurisdictieual ageucies. Upsu appeal by the applicant, the beard ef csuuty csmmissisuers may, H]'JBR fiudiugs sf fact, determine that the vislatisu did ust sccur sr was iusiguifieaht ard may returu all sr part sf the es!h]'jiiance bend. Double l Jnderljne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Stri!::e ~Rrs1:1gfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-_1?xcavation(long).RTF 21 ATTACHMENT 13

80 The restemtien bend shall be ferfuited fer vielatmg the cenditiens ef resteratien plan appreval including, but net limited te, mine allandenment prier te resteratien, resteratien net cempleted witein tee appreved time frame, resteratien aet censistent wite water management standards as centained in sectien ef teis chapter, and resteratien activity net censistent wite permits issued by ether jurisdictienal agencies. The ceuaty shall use tee fuad te restere tee site in cenfermance wite tee appreved resteratien plan.,'\ny funds remaining after tee cempletien efthe.verk shall be returned te tee bead helder. (f) Appet~ls. 1.,~ persen receiving written netice ef suspensien ef a permit and bend ferfuiture may witein fifteen (15) days fellewing tee date ef such netice enter an appeal in writing te the beard ef cehnty cemeaissieners ef Indian River GeHRt)', Flerida. Such appeal shall state the lecatien ef tee preperty, tee date ef tee aetice ef vielatiens, and tee greuads er basis of the appeal. The beard sf couaty cemeaissieners, after helding a hearing en this appeal, may centiooe tee suspensien, medify the suspensien, revoke tee eperating permit, call fer ferfuiture efany bends, er reverse the decisien eftee cemeauaity development director. 2. l'!o appeal filed later tean fifteen (15) days after the date ef such netice shall be acted upen by tee beard ef cehaty cemeaissieners, ualess the ceunty adrainistrater shall censent therete. SECTION#7 Re-number old Section to take the place of reserved section and read as follows: Seetiea Reserved. Section ~. Use of public and private roads. Any mining permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to the following provisions:. (1) The applicant shall ensure that neither public nor private property will be damaged by the hauling of mined materials and that hazardous traffic conditions will not be created. All such applications shall identify an authorized fill hauling route. If private roads or easements are intended to be used, written permission shall be submitted from the person or persons owning said road or easement as part of the application materials. l'le lead Load limits shall not be exceeded along the haul route; (2) Where deemed necessary by the county engineer, mats, culvert, ramps, or paved drives shall be placed at entrances and/or exists of haul sites in such positions that pavement edges, shoulders, curbs and sidewalks will be protected from damage; (3) If any of the hauling route is over county maintained, unpaved roads, the permittee must maintain that section of the hauling route during the hauling operation, and security for this purpose may be required, as determined by the county engineer. If security is required Double { Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance SH'ike ti'lfe~:~gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-_:rgxcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 22

81 SECTION# based upon number of trips on fue---unpaved roads, the frequency of the trips, and the duration of the activity, said security shall be a minimum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per mile of unpaved roadway identified on the approved hauling route for the mine; (a) The Public Works director or his designee is authorized to perform road maintenance on behalf of the mining owner/operator and have the road maintenance security forfeited if the mining owner/operator has failed to perform required road maintenance within three (3) working days of written notice. Forfeited security shall be used to fund the cost of road maintenance work performed. Upon forfeiture, mining operation hauling shall cease and shall not re-commence until adequate road maintenance is performed and new road maintenance security is submitted. ( 4) Where vehicles hauling excavated materials use public roads, such vehicles shall be covered in a manner to prevent fill spillage, to the satisfaction of the county engineer; ( 5) All hauling vehicles shall have the trucking company name (or truck owner's name if vehicle is privately owned) prominently displayed on the sides of the vehicle. Section is hereby replaced with wording to read as follows: Section Compliance and Enforcement (1) Enforcement and Penalties for Violations (a) Generally The county may impose but is not limited to the following types of penalties for violations of the approved project site plan, mining permit, and any conditions attached thereto: Stop work for all or a portion of the mining operation Forfeiture of posted security Termination of mining permit Penalties imposed shall be based upon the following: Timelines and adequacy of operator/owner response to take corrective action. Harsher penalties shall be imposed for low and/or inadequate operator/owner responses. Severitv and degree of violation(s). Harsher penalties shall be imposed for violations that have broader and/or longer lasting negative impacts. Doublet Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike threttga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-~gxcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 3

82 2008- Number of violations. Harsher penalties shall be imposed if numerous violations have occurred. (b) Violation and Compliance Process Upon observing a potential violation, county staff shall contact the mmmg operator or owner, advise him/her of the potential violation and corrective action, and document the observation and contact with the operator or owner. If the operator or owner takes immediate and appropriate corrective action and county staff confirms compliance, then no further county compliance/enforcement action is needed. If, however, the operator or owner fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, then county staff shall issue a formal letter of violation, citing the violation along with evidence of the violation, prescribing corrective action, and providing a compliance date. If the operator or owner corrects the violation on or before the compliance date, then the violation shall be considered a "Formal Resolved Violation". If, however, the operator or owner fails to correct the violation on or before the compliance date, then the violation shall be considered a "Formal Unresolved Violation". (c) Progressive Penalty Process 1. If an operator or owner has a Formal Unresolved Violation or five (5) or more Formal Resolved Violations within a 1 year period, then county staff shall schedule a penalty determination hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, county staff shall provide written notice of the hearing to the mining operator, mine owner, and owners of immediately adjacent properties. At the hearing, county staff shall present evidence of the violation(s) along with an evaluation of the operator's or owner's responsiveness to take corrective action(s), the severity and degree of the violation(s), and the number of violations. The owner or operator shall be given an opportunity to rebut staff's evidence/evaluation and provide his own evidence/evaluation. 2. Upon hearing the evidence, the Board of County Commissioners shall determine whether or not a penalty shall be imposed. For any given mining project, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of the project's compliance security in an amount not to exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) as a penalty. 3. If, during the life of the project, a penalty determination hearing is held after the Board of County Commissioners has imposed a penalty against the project at a previous penalty determination hearing, then at the "second" hearing the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of the entire compliance security with no limit on the amount forfeited as a penalty. 4. If, during the life of the project, a penalty determination hearing is held after the Board of County Commissioners has imposed a penalty against Double I lnder\ine Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance ti=ike tafel:lga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDJNANCE\2008\ s3axcavation(long).RTF 24 ATTACHMENT 13

83 2008- the project at each of two previous penalty determination hearings, then at the "third" hearing the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of all posted security (compliance, road maintenance, restoration) and terminate the project mining permit as a penalty. 5. At any penalty determination hearing, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of any project security posted for road maintenance to pay for road maintenance costs incurred by the county due to failure of the operator or owner to properly maintain the haul route. (d) Traffic Law Enforcement If county staff finds reason to believe that haul truck drivers are violating traffic laws on the project haul route (e.g. speeding), then staff will contact the Sheriff's Office to request traffic law enforcement along the project haul route. Any traffic citation for a moving violation given to a haul truck driver on a project haul route shall constitute a Formal Resolved Violation against the project served by that haul truck driver. Notice of such Formal Resolved Violation shall be provided to the project operator and owner. In the event that, at a penalty determination hearing, the Board of County Commissioners finds traffic law violations (moving violations) by haul truck drivers serving the project site, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to assess the operator or owner the cost to the county to hire contract traffic law enforcement personnel to conduct special traffic law enforcement activities along the project haul route. That assessment shall be in addition to other penalties that it may impose. SECTION#9 Duration and completion of permits section , is hereby amending to read as follows: ( 1) All permits shall expire one year from the date of issuance, except when otherwise authorized by a site plan or subdivision approval. A permit may be renewed by paying a renewal fee and filing an annual progress report demonstrating that the permit criteria have been met. The report must meet the specification of section (4)(d) ofthis chapter. (2) For all permitted projects, a record drawing by a surveyor or engineer registered in the State of Florida shall be provided to the community development department at the completion of the permitted project. The record drawing shall contain sufficient information to indicate that all of the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, and shall include cross-sections of the excavation and a plan drawing which locates the extent of the excavation with dimensions to all property lines. (3) The permittee shall maintain a copy of the mining permit, approved site plan, approved stormwater management permit plans, and a copy of all jurisdictional agency permits on the permitted site during the entire permit period. Said permit shall be fully visible at a location desig»ated accessible to county inspectors that is noted in the 8flplieatioR mining permit. Double i Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StFike U:trel:l:gl-1: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDlNANCE\2008\2008 ~1Excavation(long).RTF 25 ATTACHMENT 13

84 2008- (4) No permit shall be issued under this chapter if a violation of this chapter is existing on the subject property, nor shall any permits be issued to any person who is currently in violation of this chapter. This section is not intended to prohibit the issuance of a permit to correct any existing violation. SECTION#IO Reserved Section , is hereby amended to read as follows: Seetian ReserYed. Section Pre-Existing Mining Operations The county recognizes that approved and permitted mmmg operations in existence prior to December 9, 2008 may continue as approved and permitted. Such mining operations, however, shall be subject to the following requirements of these mining regulations adopted December 9, 2008: {1) Annual mining permit requirements contained in section {4)(d). {a) {b) Fees for annual mining permits established by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, and Security form requirements of section {5){c) for any security substitutions. {2) Compliance and enforcement requirements of section {3) Site restoration requirements of section (k). SECTION#ll Mining permit fees Section , is hereby amended to read as follows: Section Mining permit fees. (1) The applicant for a mining permit shall be required to file a fee~ with the applieation in an amount te-be established by resolution of the board of county commissioners. (2) Permit roaewal fees srall be oae half( 1/2) the amohht efthe origimtl fee. SECTION #12: Extractive Uses section is hereby amended to read as follows: ( 1) Mining (administmlive permit) (special exception) (a) Districts requiring administn<li>'cj9ermi1 special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of971.04): A-1 A-2 A-3. Double! /nderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 26 StFike ti'ifsl::lga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ trz:xcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13

85 2008- (b) Criteria for mining operations: 1. A site plan meeting all requirements of Chapter 914t, and applicable requirements of Chapter 934; 2. A reclamation plan including littoral zone plan and water quality management plan, as applicable; 3. All mining activities must comply with Chapter 934, Excavation and Mining; 4. All mining sites operations shall have and use direct access to a collector or arterial roadway or to a loeal road that only serves I!Onresidential uses (or rrererties designated fer!!or residential uses) in an area designated for l!onresidential uses. designated in the comprehensive plan transportation element. Access to collector or arterial roadways may include use of local roads or driveways if: a. use of such access by haul trucks is approved in writing by the owners of properties that front or are accessed from the local road or driveway, or b. such access does not serve a residence located off the mining project site. 5. No mechanical dewatering shall occur within one thousand (1,000) feet of any platted subdivision that is not serviced by public water. 6. All mining sites shall be designated AG-1, AG-2, or AG-3 on the Future Land Use Map. 7. At least 10 calendar days prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings at which the mining project request is scheduled to be considered, a mailed courtesy notice shall be sent from the county to owners of properties within Y, mile of the mining site and owners of properties that front on the road that serves as the proposed haul route for the proposed mining operation. The cost of providing such notice shall be paid by the applicant. SECTION #13: SEVERABILITY. If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated from this Ordinance and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein. Double l Tnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike thre1::1:gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008--ffJxcavation(long).RTF 27 ATTACHMENT 13

86 2008- SECTION #14: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. The provisions of any other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. SECTION #15: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or any other appropriate word. SECTION #16: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this day of, This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the day of 2008, for a public hearing to be held on the day of, 2008, and on the day of, 2008 for a second public hearing to be held on the_...,----,--...,---day of, 2008, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Wesley S. Davis Vice Chairman Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Peter D. 0 'Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Wesley S. Davis, Chairman ATTESTBY: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Do!lb!e l Jnder\ine Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike thret~:gh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ g!4Excavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 28

87 2008- This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:, and IS to take effect on APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins II, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS evelopment Director Double I Jnd~ Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 8Wike ti'ifeligi'l: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ g5xcavation(long).RTF ATTACHMENT 13 29

88 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONCERNING AN AMENDMENT TO ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs); PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 934, EXCAVATION AND MINING, AND CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES; BY AMENDING SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE SECTION , BY AMENDING EXEMPTIONS SECTION , BY AMENDING SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MINES SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING STANDARDS SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING PERMIT REGULATIONS SECTION , BY AMENDING RESERVED SECTION , BY AMENDING USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADS SECTION , BY AMENDING DURATION AND COMPLETION OF PERMITS SECTION , BY AMENDING RESERVED SECTION , BY AMENDING MINING PERMIT FEES SECTION , AND BY AMENDING THE SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA FOR EXTRACTIVE USES SECTION , AND BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION#!: Short title and purpose section is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Excavation and Mining Ordinance." (2) The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners finds that in order to oroyide for the excavation. processing. production. and transportation of mined materials. to prevent public nuisances, safety hazards and damage to private and public property in the excavation of land, and ffi effief to protect the environment, including the quality and quantity of ground and surface waters, it is necessary to regulate excavation activities, including mining and hauling, in Indian River County. SECTION#2: Exemptions section , is hereby amended to read as follows: The following activities shall be exempted from the permitting requirements of this chapter, except as specifically indicated: (1) Agricultural use projects, including agricultural drainage canals, and irrigation work incidental to agricultural operations and stock watering ponds, provided that: (a) (b) The property is agriculturally zoned, or if the property is not so zoned, the agricultural use project is allowed in. accordance with Chapter 904, Nonconformities, of the county land development wde-regulations; No excavated material is removed from the subject property; Double 1 Jnderljne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StFike threttga. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ xcavation(shortno911).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 1

89 2008- (c) (d) No excavation shall take place within fifty (50) feet of the property line; however, a ditch or canal may be excavated within fifty (50) feet of or along the property line, if written approval is obtained from affected property owners; and Wetlands are protected from the excavation activity, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (2) Earth moving in conjunction with the installation of a utility lines, wherein the excavation is to be backfilled. (3) Construction of state, federal, or local public roads and public works within the limits of public property~, right-of-way, or easement. (4) Graves. (5) Approved sanitary landfills. (6) Any activity regulated by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act and the Transmission Line Siting Act (Part II, Chapter 403, F.S.) to the extent that the provisions of this chapter are pre-emptied by said Acts. Maintenance activities undertaken by a public utility as defined in Section , Florida Statutes (1983) with regard to existing electrical power plants, their reservoirs and other related facilities. (7) Excavation incidental to development Jlermits projects. (a) Small-scale transfer of excess material Excavation incidental to any authorized Indian River County development order or permit, excluding permits for individual single-family homes and single-family ponds on individual lots or parcels. including approved site plans, subdivision plats, final development plans and/or building permits, shall be exempt if valereby no more than five thousand (5,000) cubic yards of excavated materials are remeveei transferred from the project site JlFemises. Prior to transfer of material from the project site. the project developer shall apply for and obtain a temporary use permit <TUP) from the community development director or his designee for such transfer of material. The authorized transfer of material from a development project site to adjacent right-of-way shall be considered the same as transfer of material within the boundaries of the development project site. Transfer of material off site shall occur within a continuous period ("window") of time not to exceed two (2) months and be limited to the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt excavation activities resulting in the creation of a waterbody from satisfying the littoral zone and water management standards of section 934.0~~ of this chapter. (b) Medium-scale transfer of excess material For excavation incidental to authorized site plans, subdivisions, or planned developments, excavation material remeval transferred from the JlFemises project site may exceed five thousand (5,000) cubic yards, provided that: Double I Jnder\ine Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Stfike 1:lueugA: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~--s?xcavation(shortno91l).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 2

90 The extraction process and hauling of excavated materials from the J3remises project site is completed within ~ two (2) months continuous period of time beginning with the initial transfer of material off the development project site. of commencemeflt of Brojeet construction fell owing the issmmce of The transfer of material off site shall not occur until a county land development permit er has been issued. a land development permit waiver has been granted. or release of ah ab!jfoved a site plan, has been approved and released. as aj2biieallle. ahd provided that-;;such extraction and hauling is limited to occurring between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m. Monday through Friday; 2. Water depth within a created waterbody (as applicable) shall not exceed twelve (12) feet; 3. The provisions of section (5), are satisfied, pertaining to the posting of compliance and restoration bends security, are satisfied; 4. The provisions of section ~ are satisfied, pertaining to the hauling of excavated materials on public and private roads and the posting of road maintenance security, are satisfied; 5. The provisions of section 934.0~~ are satisfied, pertaining to littoral zone and water management standards for created waterbodies~. are satisfied; and 6. No dewatering occurs within one thousand (1,000) feet of any platted subdivision that is not serviced by public water; 7. The project developer applies for and obtains an administrative site plan approval for the transfer of material off-site. +.-(c) Large-scale transfer of excess material Incidental to construction mining activity on projects. including project phases. over three hundred fifty (350) acres in size may be permitted for a total of up to eighteen (18) continuous months from the date of commencement of off-site hauling of excess material construction of the J3rojeet's \Vater mahagemoflt system, if each of the following conditions is satisfied~ as determined by the ]3Hlllic works director ahd the eolllffiu!iity develoj3ment director: That g the project developer applies for and obtains site plan approval for the transfer of material off-site. The site plan application is: submitted for approval hall '"'>fliefi provideg sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with all applicable Chapter (7)(b) standards set forth above. That the quantity of excess fill produced by project construction and proposed to be hauled off-site is the result of complying with water management or Double Underline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance.StFil<e tflfet:lga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~----sgxcavation(shortno91 1 ).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 3

91 2008- environmental requirements, or reeemmendatiens fiem stormwater management improvements recommended by jurisdictional agencies. That the quantity of excess fill to be hauled off-site requires more than two (2) months of excavation and hauling activityo An initial nerrnit allowing few (4) months of mining and hauling aetivity may be issaed by eeanty staff. An initial ektensien of sill ( i) months. a seeend ejctensien of fear (4) months and a third e1ctensien of fear (4) months. may be granted by staff if and that the applicant has demonstrated eelffi')lianee with eeanty mining regulations fer the initial neried(s) of mining aetivit.' and if the a!jplieant demonstrates that the requested timeframe (up to 18 continuous months) ezctensien(s) is ~necessary to ejceavate and haul the quantity of material involved. As a eenditien of site plan approval fer an ineidental to eenstruetion mining operation eendaeted ander this sabseetien [ (7)(b)7.], the pablie works direeter may reqaire pablie read repair work er funds or seewity te guarantee saeh work, representing an ameant of ap to twenty thoasand dollars ($20,000.00). The pablie works direeter may adjast this arneaat fer inflation, vlith199 i as the base year. (8) Maintenance dredging of lakes or canals. No fill material generated by maintenance of ponds on single-family lots or parcels shall be transferred off site. (9) A pond or ponds on a single-family residential lot or parcel, provided that: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The total surface area of the pond or ponds is not greater than one-half ( 112) acre in size or thirty-five (35) percent of the lot or parcel, whichever is more restrictive. except that the community development director or his designee may approve a larger pond area if the applicant adequately demonstrates that a larger pond is necessary to satisfy the need for fill on site' No excavation takes place within fifty (50) feet of the lot property line. Notwithstanding, in cases where the pond is necessary to meet stormwater management cut and fill balance requirements, said setback may be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of parcel width perpendicular to a given lot line, as applicable; The excavation does not disturb any existing wetland; Pond depth does not exceed twelve (12) feet; Side slopes are not greater than one foot vertical to four ( 4) feet horizontal; There ;viii be nno hauling of excavated material is hauled from the property, unless the excavation is conducted to satisfy cut and fill balance requirements for stormwater management purposes, as verified by the county engineer, provided removal of excavated material off-site is the minimum necessary to satisfy said requirements; Do11hle! lnder\ine Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike threugb: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ s-gxcavation(shortno91l).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 4

92 2008- (g) (h) It is demonstrated that the pond excavation is the minimum necessary to satisfy the intended use of fill on-site, as applicable; and A pond permit is obtained from the county planning division, including the posting of a five hundred dollar ($500.00) bellii-security or other amount established by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners; said security to be returned upon verification by county staff that the above criteria have been satisfied. SECTION#3; Section is hereby replaced with wording to read as follows; Section Site Plan Submittal Requirements for Mines For mining operations not exempt under section , the following special site plan submittal requirements, in addition to Chapter 914 and Chapter 971 submittal requirements, shall be satisfied; (1) Submittal requirements. Mining site plan application requests shall include the following; (a) (b) *(c) Documentation that the applicant has met with the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) on project stormwater and groundwater issues. Documentation that a county site plan pre-application conference has been conducted in accordance with Chapter 914 requirements and that a traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering has been conducted. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pollution prevention plan. Such pollution prevention plan shall adequately address; Containment of run-off from stockpile, wash-down, and truck spray-down areas. Containment of leaks and spills from vehicles and equipment (e.g. pumps, crushers). Wind erosion control measures used in exposed excavation and stockpile areas. Posting of setbacks and preservation areas on site. Applicable items from the county's list of mmmg operation best management practices (bmps); said Jist is maintained by and available from the county planning department. *(d) A hydrology report prepared and certified by a state certified professional engineer or geologist that, at a minimum, includes; Historical and baseline data on the hydrology of the site and surrounding *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) Double Underline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Stflke tlue1:1gh. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINA NCE\2008\ goxcavation(shortno91 I ).RTF AnACHMENT 14 5

93 2008- Historical and baseline data on various groundwater characteristics, including wet season and dry season (minimum 1 year) monitoring well data collected prior to on-site mechanical de-watering and excavation below wet season groundwater level. Submittal of such wet season and dry season monitoring well data may be delayed until issuance of the first mining permit renewal or within 1 year of the issuance of the initial mining permit. Estimated depth, thickness, and extent of the confining layer (e.g. Hawthorne group) in the general area of the project site, and maximum depth of proposed project excavation and well drilling activities. Evaluation of the cumulative groundwater impacts on adjacent wells, wetlands, and vegetation from mining or excavation operations that exist or are proposed in the vicinity of the subject mining proposal. Hydrology model run outputs for the mining operation with assumptions, summary, and conclusion. In addition, model run outputs shall be submitted that predict the post-reclamation groundwater and lake levels and shall include assumptions, summary, and conclusion. Recommendations from the professional engineer or geologist to the site plan project engineer on mining design, operation, and monitoring that ensure no adverse impacts on adjacent wells, vegetation, surface waters, and wetlands. 1. Along with the hydrology report, the applicant shall submit a $10, deposit to be used by the county to hire professional services to review and comment on the hydrology report. Once professional serves are paid, the county shall return any funds remaining on deposit to the applicant. *(e) Written description of how the site plan incorporates the design recommendations contained in the hydrology report and applicable items from the county's list of mining best management practices (bmps). 1. A description, noted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans, stating how the proposed mining operation will satisfy state and federal groundwater impact regulations and standards. 2. The date, noted on the site plan, a copy of the hydrology report was sent to the SJRWMD. *(Q (g) (h) *(i) Soils test data, if any, required by the Department of Health (DOID as a result of the county site plan pre-application conference process. The DOH may require soils testing if it determines that site conditions appear to have pollution indicators for soil contaminants regulated by Florida Administrative Code. The location, depth, characteristics, and condition of all existing wells on site. The distance from the excavation area(s) to the nearest existing or proposed city or county surficial aquifer public water supply well. A comprehensive dust and spillage control plan that, at a minimum, addresses the following: *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Qoqhle 1 Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Sffike tflrel:lg.a: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ !J1xcavation(shortno911).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 6

94 2008- treatment of stockpiles (including stockpile shape "doming"), on-site processing areas and loading areas, control of dust from truck operations on site and on the project haul route; methods of treatment, such as spraying and watering systems, other dust suppressants, devices and techniques, that prevent or minimize tracking material off-site; use of mechanical dust recovery devices and techniques; method and timing of re-vegetation in conjunction with excavation phases; method of preventing or minimizing, and cleaning up, material spillage along the haul route; and applicable items from the county's list of mining operation bmps. *(j) *(k) *(I) Noise modeling data and analysis demonstrating compliance with Chapter 974 noise and nuisance requirements. Evaluation of project impacts on haul route roads and haul route bridges and culverts if Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering requires such an evaluation as a result of the traffic impact methodology meeting. Written and graphic information displayed on the site plan demonstrating compliance with section requirements. *(m) An engineer's itemized estimate of the cost to restore the site in accordance with Chapter 934 requirements. Such estimate shall include a calculation of 125% of the estimated cost. *(n) Description and photo-documentation of the type and condition of vegetation on-site and description ofthe observable tvpe and condition of vegetation on adjacent sites. *These items may be submitted after initial review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). SECTION#4: Re-number old Section to take the place of reserved section and read as follows: 8eetien Reserved. Section 934.0S~. Water management Mining standards. (1) Procedural Sequence Mining operations are subject to the following procedural sequence: (a) (b) Discussion or "pre-application" meeting with SJRWMD. Traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering. Qouble 1 lnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strilce tl'lre~::~gi:j: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ !)2xcavation(shortno9ll).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 7

95 2008- (c) (d) (e) Site plan pre-application conference. Formal site plan submittal. Initial TRC review. (Q Final TRC review. (g) Planning & Zoning Commission review and approval. 1. Reviewed by Board of County Commissioners if appealed. (h) (i) (j) (k) Initial annual mining permit. "Pre-construction"/site work meeting with staff. Annual mining permit renewal. Site restoration and final inspection/close-out. (2) Littoral Zone and Water Management On project sites exceeding ten (10) acres in area, any excavation or mmmg activity in the unincorporated county which results in the creation or expansion of a waterbody (as defined in Chapter 901) shall be subject to the following standards, except as specifically exempted in Section of this chapter. The requirements of this section shall not apply to small lot single-family subdivisions, which, as designated in See!ien (9), are ejqjressly intended to provide workforce or affordable housing. EBW A littoral zone(s) shall be established as part of the created waterbody. A design and management plan must be submitted which shall: (ajl. Include a topographic map of the proposed littoral zone(s) showing the control elevation contour and the minus two-and-one-half-foot control water elevation contour, and include a cross-sectional view of the littoral zone(s) planting design, showing the required slopes from the top of the bank to a depth of two and one-half (2 1/2) feet below the control water elevation; f912. Specify how vegetation is to be established, including the extent, method, type and timing of any planting provided; (&)3. Provide a description of any water management procedures to be followed in order to ensure the continued viability and health of the littoral zones; (e14. Include a plan view which documents the location and extent of the littoral zones, including the percentage of the waterbody surface area (at control elevation) covered by vegetated littoral zones. Double 1 Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance t:rike thre~::~g\:1: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ "3xcavation(shortno911 ).RTF AttACHMENT 1\

96 2008- ~ill The established littoral zone(s) shall consist of native vegetation, and shall be maintained permanently as part of the waterbody. All landscaping, littoral zone revegetation plans and lake management plans shall comply with St. John River Water Management District rules. EJ1.( l Littoral zone design requirements: W 1. tbj2. tej3. fe!14. fe15. The slope for the planted littoral zone shall be no steeper than one (I) foot vertical to ten (10) feet horizontal to a distance of five (5) feet waterward of the designated planted littoral zone area. Excluding the planted littoral zones, slopes shall not exceed one (I) foot vertical to four (4) feet horizontal. Certified drawings of the littoral zone slopes must be sent to the planning division within thirty (30) days of slope construction. Littoral zones must 13e shall comprise at least thirty (30) percent of the waterbody surface area, or twenty-one (21) square feet per lineal foot of shoreline, whichever is less. Littoral zones must be located between one ( 1) foot above ordinary water level (OWL) and two (2) feet below OWL, as determined by the applicant's engineer or designee unless otherwise approved by the community development director or his designee. The littoral zone must shall be provided with a minimum of six (6) inches of sand topsoil mix, unless otherwise approved, and planted with at least five ( 5) species at an average spacing of two (2) feet on center. Inter-plant spacing will vary with species, and must be depicted on the littoral zone vegetation plan. A minimum of one tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet oflittoral zone coverage. The proposed trees must be a minimum of five (5) feet in height at time of planting (measured at planting depth) and consist of native, freshwater wetland varieties (e.g. red bay, red maple, bald cypress, loblolly bay). Appropriate species for littoral zone plantings, including trees, are listed in Chapter 926, Appendix E. 01@ Conformance: fajl. tbj2. The planted littoral zone must shall meet eighty (80) percent coverage within six (6) months, and be less than five (5) percent exotic or invasive non-native plant species after the first year. Monitoring reports are required, and must be submitted to staff at time zero (0), ninety (90) days, six (6) months, and one (1) year after planting. The applicant must notify the planning division forty-eight ( 48) hours prior to completion of littoral zone planting. For subdivision or affidavit of exemption projects, b!ittoral planting zones are-te shall be preserved and maintained as a common improvement, and shall be identified graphically and in writing en in a restrictive covenant in a form acceptable to the county attorney's office. The plat, or affidavit of exemption Double l Jnderljne Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance. tfike t=flfshgfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ g~xcavation(shortno911 ).RTF 9 ATTACHMENT 14

97 2008- document shall if applicable, HRiSt reference the restrictive covenant. The ellact langhage as seea ia tee Littoral Zoae Restrictive Goveaant HRiSt lle followed. The restrictive covenant and plat, if applicable, HRiSt shall be reviewed by the planning division and county attorney's office prior to recording. A copy of the recorded restrictive covenant HRiSt ee provided to staff prier to approval of tee land de'celepraent permit. fej3. Ed14. fejs. Planting of the littoral zones HlHSt shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of completion or the first certification of occupancy for any lot adjacent to or abutting the lake, whichever occurs first. All excavations must comply with "Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry." Planted littoral zones must be maintained in perpetuity in compliance with these planting requirements, and with "Best Management Practices." (5) There '.Viii ee no sigaificant adverse off site impact en grohhehyater EJ:aality or grohndwater levels. In tee event of dewateriag associated with ejceavations (iae!hmng raining), the applicant shall present evidenee that no salt water intrusion anei/or reooetion in EJ:Hality or qhantity of well water availaele to properties witllin one fohrth ( 1/4) mile of the permitted aetivity will occhf. t6f(tl The water management system, including swales and interconnected wetlands and lakes, must be specifically designed to inhibit siltation and eutrophication processes. To ensure this, the applicant must submit an environmental management and lake monitoring plan, specifying the method for monitoring the system and corrective actions should eutrophication and/or siltation occur. fb.ill A fifteen-foot-wide access maintenance easement shall be provided for every one thousand (I,000) feet of shoreline. This easement shall extend from below control elevation of the lake to a public or private road right-of-way~, and shall be labeled and depicted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans. f81.{g). The littoral zone will be considered as fully creditable towards the 2: I mitigation ratio for freshwater emergent wetlands; (ref. Chapter 928, Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection). (h) Off-site discharge shall meet all applicable state and federal water quality standards, including standards for turbiditv and other regulated constituents and parameters. The method for testing, collecting, and reporting baseline and monitoring data to the SJRWMD shall be noted, and testing/monitoring locations shall be depicted on the site plan and stormwater management permit plans. Double I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike trfel:lgh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Deve\opment\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ g~xcavation(shortno911).rtf ATTACHMENT 14 10

98 2008- (3) Groundwater and Environmental Protection (a) (b) (c) (d) All applicable state and federal groundwater and groundwater impact regulations shall be satisfied. Excavation activity shall occur only above the confining layer. All existing or proposed on-site wells that penetrate the confining layer shall either be grouted and plugged in accordance with SJRWMD standards or brought up to current SJRWMD standards for such wells. Such wells shall be properly plugged or upgraded and properly monumented and flagged prior to issuance of the initial mining permit. The following setbacks shall be maintained from excavation areas below the wet season groundwater level (excludes temporary re-charge ditches and similar temporary excavations used for water re-charge): feet to any plugged or unplugged well that penetrates the confining layer, feet to preserved on-site jurisdictional wetlands or native uplands, feet to known off-site jurisdictional wetlands or native uplands, feet to adjacent public conservation lands or conservation easements, 5. 1,000 feet to the nearest existing or proposed city or county public water supply well that uses the surficial aquifer (the aquifer that lies above the confining layer) as a source of potable water. (e) (f) (g) The mining operation shall not adversely affect the hydro-period of preserved jurisdictional wetlands on site or known off-site jurisdictional wetlands. The project site plan, stormwater management plans, and pollution prevention plans shall demonstrate how the hydro-period of on-site and known off-site jurisdictional wetlands will be maintained to the satisfaction of SJRWMD. Extraction and on-site processing techniques that involve blasting or use of active chemical agents are prohibited. This prohibition is based on a finding that such techniques are not necessary to extract or process recoverable materials known to exist within Indian River County, and is intended to avoid potential adverse groundwater impacts as well as noise and vibration nuisances. Any contaminated soils identified on site shall be handled in accordance with applicable state and federal standards, as directed by the Department of Health (DOH). (h) Project site plans and permit plans shall incorporate all appropriate recommendations and best management practices (bmps) contained or identified within the project hydrology report. The county is authorized to engage professional services to review project hydrology reports and charge applicants the cost of such services. Double I lnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance SI:Fike tfifelfgr. Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ sexcavation(shortno91l).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 1

99 Upon receipt of a project hydrology report, the county has 60 days to provide the applicant comments on the hydrology report. Prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the applicant shall respond to each comment in writing. ( 4) Traffic and Nuisance Mitigation (a) The noise and nuisance requirements of Chapter 974 shall be satisfied. Normal operation of vehicles shall be deemed to meet Chapter 974 requirements. 1. Pumps, crushers, and processing equipment (including portable equipment but not including vehicles) used on site shall be placed behind berms, located below surrounding ground level, or equipped with mufflers (e.g. "turbo-style" mufflers) or similar devices that significantly reduce the level of emitted noise. (b) (c) (d) (e) Dust/particulates and material spillage shall be controlled in accordance with the approved project comprehensive dust and spillage control plan. Material stockpiles shall not exceed a height of 25 feet above the grade of the adjacent project site perimeter. For purposes of these mmmg regulations, "haul route" shall mean the roadway segment(s) traveled by haul truck traffic from the mining site to the nearest paved major road intersection(s). The project haul route(s) shall be determined by the Public Works director or his designee as a result of the traffic impact methodology meeting with Public Works/Traffic Engineering. Unpaved haul routes shall be improved and maintained to the following standards: 1. Minimum gradable base of twelve (12) inches of suitable road base material (material that can meet the compaction standard below) shall be provided for the duration of the mining project. The mining operator(s) shall add gradable base material as directed by the Public Works Director or his designee to meet this gradable base material standard. 2. Base material shall be suitably compacted to meet LBR (load bearing ratio) 40 standards. 3. The minimum gradable haul route width shall be 24 feet. (f) Haul routes or haul route segments shall be paved if the anticipated project haul truck traffic from the proposed mine and approved mines sharing the same haul ronte segment(s) exceed an average of 500 truck trip ends per day. (Truck trip ends are one-directional. For example, one truck entering the mine = 1 trip end; the same truck leaving the mine = a 2nd trip end.) Applicants may enter into a developers agreement to equitably share or recoup paving costs. 1. Paved haul routes shall meet the following specifications: a. Minimum pavement width shall be 24 feet. Double Underline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike trreugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ gicavation(shortno911).RTF 12 ATTACHMENT 14

100 2008- b. Pavement thickness base and sub-base depths shall meet county thoroughfare and truck route specifications, including ESAL (equivalent single axle loads) and pavement strength co-efficients. (g) (h) The county's adopted level of service (LOS) for the project haul route and intersections significantly impacted by project truck traffic shall be evaluated using passenger car equivalents (PCE's) for anticipated haul truck traffic based on Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) standards for PCEs. (For example, a PCE of 2.3 passenger cars per haul truck would be used to evaluate the LOS for the project haul route and intersections impacted by the project.) Such evaluation shall use average daily haul truck traffic plus a 15% (fifteen percent) peaking factor. Where a haul route segment(s) is shared by more than one mining operation, haul truck traffic from all the mining operations shall be used in the LOS evaluation. To provide gaps in haul truck traffic on haul routes and prevent significant haul truck back-ups at haul route/major road intersections, the following truck frequency standards shall be satisfied: 1. A mining operator shall limit the frequency of haul truck trips to and from his mining operation on two-lane roads to no more than 120 trip ends per hour, with trips ends as defined in Section 4(f) above. This frequency standard may be exceeded for delivery of materials to special or large projects ifthe operator first obtains approval from the Public Works Director of a maintenance of traffic plan. Such plan shall include a coordinated hauling schedule if a shared haul route is used and method of maintaining acceptable traffic flow to provide "gaps" for non-project traffic along the haul route. Said plan may also require additional improvements to or security for maintaining the haul route, and may require coordination with other mining operators. 2. Along a two-lane haul route segment, cumulative haul truck trips shall not exceed 240 trip ends per hour, with trip ends as defined in Section 4(0 above. 3. To aid the county in monitoring haul truck trip frequency, applicants shall provide haul truck log information to the Public Works Director or his designee, upon request. (i) Where one or more haul route segments are shared by more than one mmmg operation, the operators of the affected mines shall obtain Public Works approval of a haul route improvement and maintenance plan that addresses shared responsibilities and use of posted security in the event that one or more parties fail to perform its fairshare maintenance. SECTION#S Mining permit regulations section is hereby amended to read as follows: Qoqb!e I Jnder\ine Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Skike tflrel±g-h: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ g13xcavation(shortno91l).RTF 13 ATTACHMENT 14

101 2008- Section Mining permit and other regulations (I) Applicability. A An initial county mmmg permit shall be required fef prior to commencement of land-clearing, excavation, or hauling associated with any mining activity (as defined in Chapter 90 I) in the unincorporated county, except as exempted in section of this chapter. In addition, a mining permit must be renewed annually to keep the mining operation active and in compliance with these mining regulations. l.ny reqaest fer a mining permit shall he eensidered an applieatien fer site plan appreval, and the preeedure set ferth in the em±nty land develepment eede fer sueh applieatiens shall he fellewed. The provisions of this section shall he eensidered as eenditiens l!pj!!y to the mining site plan and administrative permit special exception use request. er speeial ejweptien use as alle'.ved and speeified in Chapter 971, Speeifie Land Use Criteria (2) Application procedures. Mining permit applications and requests for annual mmmg permit approval shall be mae!e submitted to the community development department, in aeeerdanee.vith site plan submittal reqairements set ferth in the eehhty land develepment eede. The site plan applieatien must alse demenstrate that, in additien te eenfermanee with all eeunty eedes, the eenditiens sf the mining permit are met as speeified herein. Speeified submittal requirements shall inelude: and shall be accompanied by an approved site plan unless an approved site plan is already on file with the department. The project site plan shall meet all applicable site plan, Chapter 934, and Chapter 971 requirements, including the following special requirements: (a) A mining project site plan, including: I. Plan view and cross-sections of mining area; 2. Amount of fill to be removed; 3. Timetable of mining activity; 4. Method of mining; 5. Hours of operation; and 6. Safety/security plan for the site. (b) A restoration plan, including: I. A description of the eventual future use of the site; and 2. Final grades of the site'i 3. Littoral zone grading and planting plan in accordance with the littoral zone requirements of these mining regulations; and 4. Groundcover treatment for the entire site, including permanent erosion control and stormwater management measures. Double l Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike thra~gfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ s9xcavation(shortno9l I ).RTF 14 ATTACHMENT 14

102 (3) Conditions of the mining permit (a) (b) +he Generally, the maximum project-site development phase for mining excavation pit activities shall not exceed twenty (20) acres per phase. During transition from one phase to the next, two phases may be active concurrently if security is posted for both phases in accordance with these mining regulations. No portion of a pit (lake) shall be required to be fully restored in accordance with the project's restoration plan until excavation ofthe entire pit (lake) has ceased. No mining excavation shall occur within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a projected rightof-way line of any existing or proposed public road, nor within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer perimeter of the project property. Where a mining operation consists only of the removal of a mound and does not consist of lowering the elevation of ground below the neighboring property, an exception of the one hundred fifty (150) feet setback may be permitted at the time of site plan approval. In addition, the applicant shall satisfy the following: 1. A three-hundred-foot setback from adjacent occupied structures (structures existing as of the date of site plan application for the mining project) to mining pits, on-site haul roads, and material stockpile areas. (c) (d) (e) (f) All mining sites that exceed ten (10) acres in area shall be subject to the provisions of section , water management standards, of this chapter. Projects creating waterbodies must also provide a safety/security plan for the mining operation phase, including, but not limited to, fences, access, control, and other security methods. If the project site is of a size that falls below St. Johns River Water Management District permitting thresholds and is located (in whole or part) on the Atlantic coastal sand ridge, no excavation governed by a mining permit shall result in an average elevation ofless than twenty-five (25) feet mean sea level (MSL) for that portion of the project site located on the sand ridge. Mining project sites that are large enough to fall within Saint Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permitting requirements shall conform to SJRWMD permitting requirements concerning depth of mining and all other applicable SJRWMD permitting requirements. If the project site is adjacent to a residential district or to an agriculturally-zoned parcel of ten (1 0) acres or less, the perimeter of the site adjacent to such an area shall include a fiftyfoot wide bufferyard and a type "A" buffer or its equivalent along said site boundary. No crusher, mixing plant, bin, tank, or structure directly involved in the production process shall be located less thanl sil( lrurhlred (600) feet feet to any adjacent property zoned residential, or feet or 25% of the project site width, whichever is less, to any adjacent property not zoned residential. In no case shall the setback to propertv not zoned residential be less than 250 feet. frem any adjaeent residentially ;oened preperty,: and t'.ve!hmdred fifty (250) feet frem all ether adjaeent nenresidentially ;oened preperty. DoHhle I Jnderljne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike tafehgr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ &avation(shortno911).rtf 15 ATTACHMENT 14

103 2008- (g) (h) (i) (j) Hard reek miaiag aetiv!tjes shall eashre that meashfes are taker te eeatrel oost. No explosives or active chemical agents shall be used to extract or process materials on site. The Iadiaa R~ver CeHaty Plaaaiag aad Z:eaiag Cemmissiea shall, Hfl9R aj3j3reval ef the miaiag site fllar, erder isshaaee af aa 9j3eratiag 13ermit te the evmer ef the laad Hader hls sigaathfe, aad SHell 13ermit shalllle isshed withia tea (10) days after the aetermiaatiea ef eeffij31iaaee lly the eemmissiea. The communitv development department shall issue a mining permit upon site plan and administrative permit approval, and a determination that all site plan release and applicable Chapter 934 requirements are satisfied for permit issuance. Previsieas fur eeatiooing eperatien. Nothing herein shall be construed as a requirement that an operator of an existing sand mine shall cease operations until a mining site plan has been approved, provided a mining site plan has been previously approved and maintained. Specific mining activity timeframes, from the date of initial mining permit issuance, are established based upon the estimated quantity of material to be removed. Excavation, hauling, or other mining activities occurring beyond these timeframes, (along with any approved extension requests) are prohibited: Less than I 0,000 cubic yards I year 10, ,999 cubic yards 2 years 100, ,000 cubic yards 5 years Over 500,000 cubic yards 10 years &.-1. These timeframes may be extended by the board of county commissioners upon an applicant's request made prior to the normal timeframe expiration. The board may grant an extension if it determines that the mining operation has been inactive for a period of time due to market conditions such as an economic recession. The board shall not extend the initial timeframe by a period of time greater than the determined period of inactivity. (k) The mining site shall be restored in accordance with the approved restoration plan. Within five (5) months of the end of the approved timeframe (including any extension), the operator shall submit to the county a written notice stating that the mine is inactive and has been restored. Such notice shall be accompanied by two (2) signed and sealed as-built surveys of the site demonstrating substantial conformance with the approved project restoration plan. 8Heh resteratien shall lle eeffij3leted, and Restoration work shall then be inspected for compliance with the approved project restoration plan and aj3preved by county staff within six (6) months of the end of the approved timeframe (including any extension) for the mining operation. None of the security posted with the county in accordance with these mining regulations shall be returned unless and until the requirements of this sub-section ("(k)") are satisfied. Qouble I Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Strike H:trsHgH: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDJNANCE\2008\ ,cavation(shortno911 ).RTF ATTACHMENT 14 6

104 2008- (a) (b) (c) (d) Mining operations loeatea ill an agrieultural :wrffig aistriet, where the 13rejeet site is located west of 1-95 and not adjacent to Reither a residential district Ror an agriculturallyzoned parcel of ten ( 1 0) acres or less, shall not be limited to specific hours of operation unless a determination is made by the planning and zoning commission concerning the need to limit hours of operation due to the anticipated impact of the mining operation on surrounding properties. i\pplieants operatirg If a project site or any portion of a project's primary haul route is located east of 1-95, or if any portion of a project site is located adjacent to.!! residential zoning districts or agriculturally-zoned parcels of ten (1 0) acres or less, then the mine shall be permittee! to operate limited to operation between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays; hauling off-site shall not occur after 5:00p.m. on any day. Operation other than 7:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. may be permitted by the board of county commissioners if the board determines that the impact of the mining operation on surrounding properties will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood, contrary to county noise and vibration control regulations. The land surface shall be restored to a condition which is in complete compliance with the site plan for reclamation and rehabilitation of the area. The mining excavation pit shall not be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the projected right-of-way line of any existing or proposed public road nor within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer perimeter of the land area. Where a mining operation consists only of the removal of a mound and does not consist of lowering the elevation of ground below the neighboring property, an exception to the one-hundred-fifty (150) foot outer perimeter setback may be permitted at the time of the site plan approval. All slopes and banks shall be sloped at a ratio of not steeper than three (3) feet horizontal to one foot vertical, graded, grassed and stabilized. Permanent project site boundary comers and the 150 foot project perimeter setback line shall be marked with intermediate stakes at a minimum interval of three hundred (300) feet, ana all limits of ejleavatior shall be staked, marked and maintained with visible flags in the field, in accordance with the approved project site plans for the J3ennit. lumual progress report. The Between August 1' 1 and October 1' 1 of each year, the operator holding a valid mining permit shall file, OR or before submit to the community development department the following: Oetober 1 of eaeh year, _ _a written request to renew the annual mining permit, a written statement report to the 601RHlUility aeveloj3mellt aepartmellt identifying the current operator and engineer of record, a calculation of the kmcls land area mined and reclaimed fef during the preceding ealenaar year, ana identifying kmcls a calculation of the land area expected to be mined, ana lanas a calculation of the land area planned for reclamation during the eurrent coming year~, The report shall also verify verification that all county and jurisdictional agency permits are valid and that the operation is in compliance with all conditions of other permitting authorities site plan approval, ana shall note _ _the expiration dates for all jurisdictional agency permits, a copy of all monitoring reports and monitoring data provided to jurisdictional agencies during the preceding year, and Double i Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes 17 Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Sa-ike threugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-~90 ~avation(shortno911 ). RTF ATTACHM NT 14

105 2008- a summary indicating the status of compliance with monitored thresholds and any instances of non-compliance during the preceding year. 1. No annual mining permit shall be renewed unless and until the mining site is deemed to be in compliance with the approved project site plan. Failure to file the required annual progress report by October 1 '\ or obtain renewal of the permit by November 1'', shall be grounds for suspension of the operating permit mining operation; however, an extension of time for filing or obtaining the permit renewal may be granted by the p!ahhiug aud zouiug eommissiou communitv development director or his designee upon request and for reasonable cause. ( 5) Requirement of bauds Posted security (a) (b) (c) Intent. Compliance and restoration bends security shall be posted to ensure that the site is developed, operated, and restored in conformance with the approved mining site plan and restoration plan. The compliance bend securitv ean may be assessee! forfeited as a penalty ouly to violations of site piau approval that are ehargeable to the miuihg permit ho!eler, aud those uneler his supervision, Elireetiou, or eoutrol for violations as provided in section of these mining regulations. The restoration bend security is to provide funds to restore guarantee that the site is restored in compliance with the approved restoration plan and may be forfeited as provided in section of these mining regulations. Amount. The compliance bend security shall be posted in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per acre of the project site with a rniuirnurn of five thousauel dollars ($ ) area upon which mining activities are conducted and authorized via the mining permit. For purposes of the compliance security calculation, such areas shall include any cleared or stabilized area used or permitted to be used for access, staging, hauling, excavation, stockpiling, re-charging, processing, parking, or storage. The minimum amount of the compliance security shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The restoration bend security shall be posted in the an amount of oue thousand Elollars ($1,000.00) per aere of e~leavatiou 'Nith a rniuirnurn of five thousand Elollars ($ ) equal to 125% of the project engineer's itemized cost estimate to restore the site, approved by the Public Works director or his designee. Said estimate shall be based on the cost to restore the mining activity site area in accordance with the approved restoration plan. The cost estimate and resulting required security amount shall be updated and revised every 3 years during the life of the mining operation. The cost estimate must be approved by the Public Works director or his designee. The minimum amount of the restoration security shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Form: The security shall be provided in a form consistent with the county's standards for subdivision improvements maintenance security as provided in (2). fe)@ Phasing. When one phase of twenty (20) acres or less is completed and restored m conformance with the subrnitteel site piau fer reelamatieu auel rehabilitation, aud iu eouferrnauee with this ehapter, approved restoration plan, the compliance and Double!Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance trike ti'ifehgi'l: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ Savation(shortno91 I ).RTF AnACHMElfT 14

106 2008- restoration bends security may be transferred to the next phase under the approved site plan. More tflah one phase at a time No more than two phases may be mined concurrently; however, each phase shall be fully bonded covered by posted security, as required by this chapter. fdj~ (e) Renewal. Within thirty (30) days preceding bend security expiration, a bona a mining operator shall renew the posted security renewal or provide new bend security, in a form and amount approved by the community development director and county attorney, rnt!st be on file in the eofhh'h!ffity development department. In the event that timely security renewal does not occur, the county is authorized to have the security forfeited. This process shall be continued through the completion of eaeh the mining operation. F'eifeitui'C. Ujlon a finding of noneoffijlliaaee with this ellapter or tile approved mining site plah or reelarnation site plaa; or failure to renew bonds within thirty (30) days of ellpiration, the eomrnt!hity development aireetor shall notify the permit holder in vrriting of the noneoffijlliahee ana the pending forfeiture of the eoffijllianee ancl/or restoration bona. This notiee shall also ineluae notice of the appeal process. 1. Tile eompliance bona shall be forfeited for Yiolating the eonaitions of site plan approyal including, but not limited to, unapproved off site discharge of water, failure to eonfine hauling to approyea hauling routes, failure to maintain hauling route per the approyea maintenanee plan, operating in violation of the safety/security plan, ellcavating within required setbacks, mining of additional phases prior to restoration of the pre';ious phase, ana activity not consistent witfi permits issued by other jurisaietional ageneies. Uj'lon appeal by the applicant, the board of county commissioners may, UJ30n findings of faet, determine that the violation did not oecur or.vas insignifieant ana may return all or part of the coffijlliance bona. 2. Tile restoration bona shall be forfeited for violating the eonditions of restoration plan approval including, but not limited to, mine abandonment prior to restoration, restoration not eompletea within tile approved time frame, restoration not eonsistent '.vita water management standards as contained in seetion of this ehapter, ana restoration activity not consistent with permits issued by other jurisdictional agencies. Tile county shall use tile fund to restore the site in eonformanee with the approved restoration plan. Any funds remaining after tile completion of tile work shall be returned to the bona holder. (f) Appeals. 1. Any person receiving '.Witten notiee of suspension of a permit ana bona forfeiture may within fifteen (15) days following the date of such notiee enter an appeal in ',witing to the board of eouuty eommissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Such appeal shall state the loeation of the property, the date of the notiee of violations, ana the grounds or basis of the appeal. Tile board of county eornrnissioners, after holding a hearing on this appeal, may eontinue tile Double ljnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StFike tflfet~:gfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance i F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORD INANCE\2008\2008-~90 4avation(shortno9ll ).RTF ATTACHMENT 94

107 2008- suspe!lsioll, modify the suspe!lsioll, re 1oke the operatihg permit, eall for forfeiture of all)' ao!lds, or re 1erse the deeisioll of the eohllllullity deyelopme!lt direetor. 2. No appeal filed later thah fiftee!l (15) days after the date of sueh!lotiee shall lle aeted UflO!l by the board of eou!lty eohh1'lissiohers, UH!ess fue eounty admihistrator shall eohseut tllereto. SECTION#6 Re-number old Section to take the place of reserved section and read as follows: Seetioa Reserved. Section ~. Use of public and private roads. Any mining permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) The applicant shall ensure that neither public nor private property will be damaged by the hauling of mined materials and that hazardous traffic conditions will not be created. All such applications shall identify an authorized fill hauling route. If private roads or easements are intended to be used, written permission shall be submitted from the person or persons owning said road or easement as part of the application materials. l'!o load Load limits shall not be exceeded along the haul route; (2) Where deemed necessary by the county engineer, mats, culvert, ramps, or paved drives shall be placed at entrances and/or exists of haul sites in such positions that pavement edges, shoulders, curbs and sidewalks will be protected from damage; (3) If any of the hauling route is over county maintained, unpaved roads, the permittee must maintain that section of the hauling route during the hauling operation, and security for this purpose may be required, as determined by the county engineer. If security is required based upon number of trips on the-unpaved roads, the frequency of the trips, and the duration of the activity, said security shall be a minimum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($1 0,000.00) per mile of unpaved roadway identified on the approved hauling route for the mine; (a) The Public Works director or his designee is authorized to perform road maintenance on behalf of the mining owner/operator and have the road maintenance security forfeited if the mining owner/operator has failed to perform required road maintenance within three (3) working days of written notice. Forfeited security shall be used to fund the cost of road maintenance work performed. Upon forfeiture, mining operation hauling shall cease and shall not re-commence until adequate road maintenance is performed and new road maintenance security is submitted. Double l Jnderline Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Sa=ike tare~:~ga: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\ t90 5cavation(shortno911 ).RTF 20 ATTACHMENT 14

108 SECTION# (4) Where vehicles hauling excavated materials use public roads, such vehicles shall be covered in a manner to prevent fill spillage, to the satisfaction of the county engineer; ( 5) All hauling vehicles shall have the trucking company name (or truck owner's name if vehicle is privately owned) prominently displayed on the sides of the vehicle. Section is hereby replaced with wording to read as follows: Section Compliance and Enforcement (1) Enforcement and Penalties for Violations (a) Generally The county may impose but is not limited to the following types of penalties for violations of the approved project site plan, mining permit, and any conditions attached thereto: Stop work for all or a portion of the mining operation Forfeiture of posted security Termination of mining permit Penalties imposed shall be based upon the following: Timelines and adequacy of operator/owner response to take corrective action. Harsher penalties shall be imposed for low and/or inadequate operator/owner responses. Severity and degree of violation( s ). Harsher penalties shall be imposed for violations that have broader and/or longer lasting negative impacts. Number of violations. Harsher penalties shall be imposed if numerous violations have occurred. (b) Violation and Compliance Process Upon observing a potential violation, county staff shall contact the mining operator or owner, advise him/her of the potential violation and corrective action, and document the observation and contact with the operator or owner. If the operator or owner takes immediate and appropriate corrective action and county staff confirms compliance, then no further county compliance/enforcement action is needed. If, however, the operator or owner fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, then county staff shall issue a formal letter of violation, citing the violation along with evidence of the violation, prescribing corrective action, and providing a compliance date. If the operator or owner corrects the violation on or before the compliance date, then the violation shall be considered a "Formal Resolved Violation". If, however, Double 1!nderljne Text: Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance StFilee thretlgfl: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008-,90 t>avation(shortno911 ).RTF 21 ATTACHMENT 14

109 2008- the operator or owner fails to correct the violation on or before the compliance date, then the violation shall be considered a "Formal Unresolved Violation". (c) Progressive Penalty Process 1. If an operator or owner has a Formal Unresolved Violation or five (5) or more Formal Resolved Violations within a 1 year period, then county staff shall schedule a penalty determination hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, county staff shall provide written notice of the hearing to the mining operator, mine owner, and owners of immediately adjacent properties. At the hearing, county staff shall present evidence of the violation(s) along with an evaluation of the operator's or owner's responsiveness to take corrective action(s), the severity and degree of the violation(s), and the number of violations. The owner or operator shall be given an opportunity to rebut staff's evidence/evaluation and provide his own evidence/evaluation. 2. Upon hearing the evidence, the Board of Countv Commissioners shall determine whether or not a penalty shall be imposed. For any given mining project, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of the project's compliance security in an amount not to exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) as a penalty. 3. If, during the life of the project, a penalty determination hearing is held after the Board of County Commissioners has imposed a penalty against the project at a previous penalty determination hearing, then at the "second" hearing the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of the entire compliance security with no limit on the amount forfeited as a penalty. 4. If, during the life of the project, a penalty determination hearing is held after the Board of County Commissioners has imposed a penalty against the project at each of two previous penalty determination hearings, then at the "third" hearing the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of all posted security (compliance, road maintenance, restoration) and terminate the project mining permit as a penalty. 5. At any penalty determination hearing, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose forfeiture of any project security posted for road maintenance to pay for road maintenance costs incurred by the county due to failure of the operator or owner to properly maintain the haul route. (d) Traffic Law Enforcement If county staff finds reason to believe that haul truck drivers are violating traffic laws on the project haul route (e.g. speeding), then staff will contact the Sheriff's Office to request traffic law enforcement along the project haul route. Any Double 1 Jnderline Text Non Workshop Changes Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance Stfike trfehgr: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2008\2008~-49()Tavation(shortno91l).RTF. 22 AnACHMENT 14